Special financial audit, Arizona's Homeland Security Grant Program : a report to the Arizona Legislature

A REPORT
ARIZONA LEGISLATURE
TO THE
Financial Audit Division Special Financial Audit
Arizona's Homeland Security Grant Program
OCTOBER ? 2006
Debra K. Davenport Auditor General
The Auditor General is appointed by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, a bipartisan committee composed of five senators and five representatives. Her mission is to provide independent and impartial information and specific recommendations to improve the operations of state and local government entities. To this end, she provides financial audits and accounting services to the State and political subdivisions, investigates possible misuse of public monies, and conducts performance audits of school districts, state agencies, and the programs they administer.
The Joint Legislative Audit Committee
Representative Laura Knaperek, Chair Representative Tom Boone Representative Ted Downing Representative Pete Rios Representative Steve Yarbrough Representative Jim Weiers (ex-officio) Senator Robert Blendu, Vice Chair Senator Ed Ableser Senator Carolyn Allen Senator John Huppenthal Senator Richard Miranda Senator Ken Bennett (ex-officio)
Audit Staff
Dennis Mattheisen, Director Jay Zsorey, Manager and Contact Person Tara Erickson, Senior Natasha Komo Brandi Melancon Josh Snyder
Copies of the Auditor General's reports are free. You may request them by contacting us at:
Office of the Auditor General
2910 N. 44th Street, Suite 410 ? Phoenix, AZ 85018 ? (602) 553-0333
Additionally, many of our reports can be found in electronic format at:
www.azauditor.gov
STATE OF ARIZONA
DEBRA K. DAVENPORT, CPA AUDITOR GENERAL
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
WILLIAM THOMSON DEPUTY AUDITOR GENERAL
October 2, 2006
Members of the Arizona Legislature The Honorable Janet Napolitano, Governor Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Special Financial Audit of Arizona's Homeland Security Grant Program. This report is in response to a May 22, 2006, resolution of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The special financial audit was conducted under the authority vested in the Auditor General by Arizona Revised Statutes ?41-1279.03. Arizona's Homeland Security Grant Program is a federal program comprising the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, the Urban Areas Security Initiative Program, the Metropolitan Medical Response System Program, the Citizens Corps Program, and the Emergency Management Performance Grants. Collectively, these grant programs provide money to the State to prevent, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism. This report provides an overview of the goals and objectives of each program and the amount of monies awarded to and expended by the State and local jurisdictions for each program. It also includes information on the processes used by the State to administer the programs and our conclusions and recommendations concerning these processes. My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clarify items in the report. This report will be released to the public on October 3, 2006. Sincerely,
Debbie Davenport Auditor General
2910 NORTH 44
th
STREET ? SUITE 410 ? PHOENIX, ARIZONA
85018 ? (602) 553-0333 ? FAX (602) 553-0051
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction & Background Chapter 1: Administration of Arizona's Homeland
Security Grant Program
Homeland Security Director's responsibilities Arizona Office of Homeland Security responsibilities Division of Emergency Management responsibilities Program costs
1 9 9 10 10 10
Chapter 2: Characteristics of the Homeland Security
Grant Program
Arizona's Homeland Security Grant Program Program goals and objectives
13 13 15 21 21 22 22 27 28 29 30
continued
Chapter 3: Homeland Security grant allocation process
U.S. Department of Homeland Security allocation requirements Arizona's allocation processes State Homeland Security Program and Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program allocation process Urban Areas Security Initiative allocation process Metropolitan Medical Response System allocation process Citizens Corps Program allocation process Emergency Management Performance Grant allocation process
Office of the Auditor General
page
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 4: Conclusions and recommendations on the
state-wide administration of the Homeland Security Grant Program
Adequate documentation should be retained for projects Reimbursement requests should be verified to the approved project Grant accounting records should be reconciled Coordination between the AOHS and the ADEM should be improved Previous deficiencies noted Recommendations
33 33 34 33 35 36 36 a-1 a-3 a-4 a-5 a-6 a-7 a-8
Appendix:
State Agencies Central Region East Region North Region South Region West Region
Agency Response
continued
State of Arizona
page
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figures:
1 Enacted 2006 Federal Funding for Homeland Security by Federal Agency (in millions) (Unaudited) 2 Arizona SHSP Amounts Expended and Unspent Award Balances Grant Years 2003 through 2006 (Unaudited) 3 Arizona LETPP Amounts Expended and Unspent Award Balances Grant Years 2004 through 2006 (Unaudited) 4 Arizona UASI Amounts Expended and Unspent Award Balances Grant Years 2003 through 2006 (Unaudited) 5 Arizona MMRS Amounts Expended and Unspent Award Balances Grant Years 2005 and 2006 (Unaudited) 6 Arizona CCP Amounts Expended and Unspent Award Balances Grant Years 2003 through 2006 (Unaudited) 7 Arizona EMPG Amounts Expended and Unspent Award Balances Grant Years 2003 through 2006 (Unaudited) 8 Arizona Homeland Security Grant Program Local Jurisdiction and State Allocation Process Grant Year 2006 9 Map of Arizona Federal Homeland Security Grant Program Regions and Arizona Counties
3 15 16 17 17 18 19 31 a-2
continued
Office of the Auditor General
page
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tables:
1 Director's Salary (Unaudited) 2 ADEM Management and Administrative Expenditures and Grant Award Amounts by Grant Year (Unaudited) 3 Date the Grant Program Was Awarded to Arizona by the Federal Government 4 Arizona Homeland Security Grant Program Award Amounts Grant Years 2003 through 2006 5 Total Homeland Security Grant Program Monies Awarded, Expended, and Unspent by Program Grant Years 2003 through 2006 (Unaudited) 6 Example of $1 Million SHSP Award Allocation in 2006 7 SHSP and LETPP Allocations Between the State and Local Jurisdictions Grant Years 2003 through 2006 (Unaudited) 8 UASI Allocations Between the State and Local Jurisdictions Grant Years 2003 through 2006 (Unaudited) 9 MMRS Allocations Between the State and Local Jurisdictions Grant Years 2005 and 2006 (Unaudited)
9
12 13 14
20 24
26
27
28
continued
State of Arizona
page
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tables (concl'd):
10 CCP Allocations Between the State and Local Jurisdictions Grant Years 2003 through 2006 (Unaudited) 11 EMPG Allocations Between the State and Local Jurisdictions Grant Years 2003 through 2006 (Unaudited) 12 Homeland Security Monies By Agency and Project Grant Years 2003 through 2005 (Unaudited) 13 Homeland Security Monies for the Central Region By Local Jurisdiction and Project Grant Years 2003 through 2005 (Unaudited) 14 Homeland Security Monies for the East Region By Local Jurisdiction and Project Grant Years 2003 through 2005 (Unaudited) 15 Homeland Security Monies for the North Region By Local Jurisdiction and Project Grant Years 2003 through 2005 (Unaudited) 16 Homeland Security Monies for the South Region By Local Jurisdiction and Project Grant Years 2003 through 2005 (Unaudited) 17 Homeland Security Monies for the West Region By Local Jurisdiction and Project Grant Years 2003 through 2005 (Unaudited)
29
30
a-9
a-21
a-43
a-49
a-63
a-85
concluded
Office of the Auditor General
page
v
State of Arizona
page
vi
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
In May 2006, the Joint Legislative Audit Committee requested that the Office of the Auditor General conduct a special financial audit of federal homeland security programs awarded to the State of Arizona. The approved audit request asked for the following information on the six grant programs that make up the State's Homeland Security Grant Program for grant years 2003 through 2006.1 H Homeland Security Grant Program administration amount of homeland security monies spent on administrative functions.
The
Homeland Security Grant Program
State Homeland Security Program Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program Urban Areas Security Initiative Metropolitan Medical Response System Citizen Corps Program Emergency Management Performance Grants
State Homeland Security Director's salary as well as any additional positions held by the Director that may add to his salary for every year he has been Director.
The
H Homeland Security Grant Program characteristics total amount of federal homeland security monies received by the State.
The
total amount of federal homeland security monies spent or encumbered by the State, counties, cities, and towns.
The
H Homeland Security Grant Program allocation process methodology used to review, approve, and allocate homeland security monies to local jurisdictions.2
The
amount of homeland security monies retained by the State and the amount allocated to local jurisdictions.
The
1 2
Grant year is the federal fiscal year that the federal government budgeted the grant program. Local jurisdiction is defined in the National Strategy for Homeland Security as "any county, city, village, town, district, or other political subdivision of any state, any Native American tribe or authorized tribal organization, or Alaska native village or organization, and includes any rural community or unincorporated town or village or any other public entity for which an application for assistance is made by a state or political subdivision thereof." Office of the Auditor General
page
1
itemization of state and local projects that have received federal homeland security monies in each grant year. The itemization shall include a description of each project's goals and objectives, the cost of the project, and whether the funding for the project is allowable under the permissible use of federal homeland security monies.
An
The approved audit request did not direct auditors to perform a detailed review of individual project expenditures. In addition, auditors were unable to obtain a description of every project's goals and objectives or determine whether each project was allowable under federal regulations due to the manner in which some grant programs were allocated, deficiencies in records maintained by the State, and the large number of projects awarded. The engagement limitations section of this chapter describes the limitations auditors encountered when conducting the audit. A Any conclusions and recommendations regarding the state-wide administration of the Homeland Security Grant Program
Overview of the Homeland Security Grant Program
Federal government--In July 2002, the President of the United States issued the
What is Homeland Security?
"Homeland security is a concerted national effort to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce America's vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the damage and recover from attacks that do occur."
Source: The National Strategy for Homeland Security, July 2002.
National Strategy for Homeland Security and soon after created the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which began operating in March 2003. The purpose of the national strategy is to mobilize and organize the nation to secure the U.S. homeland from terrorist attacks. The strategy aligns and focuses homeland security functions into six critical mission areas: intelligence and warning, border and transportation security, domestic counterterrorism, protection of critical infrastructure and key assets, defense against catastrophic threats, and emergency preparedness and response. Although many other federal agencies are involved in homeland security activities, the DHS has the dominant role in implementing this strategy.
The DHS is a blending of 22 federal agencies to centralize the leadership of various homeland security activities under a single department. Some of the more prominent agencies that are now part of the DHS include the Transportation Security Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the Coast Guard. Although many of the homeland security activities have been consolidated under the DHS, other federal agencies also continue to carry out such activities. Most of the monies allocated to other agencies are used for research and development, military security, and law enforcement activities. The federal government budgeted $54.9 billion for homeland security for federal fiscal year 2006. Figure 1 (see page 3) shows the allocation of the 2006 funding for homeland security by federal agency.
State of Arizona
page
2
The Office of Grants and Training (OG&T), within the DHS, is Figure 1: Enacted 2006 Federal Funding for responsible for directing and Homeland Security by Federal Agency (in millions) supervising federal terrorism (Unaudited) preparedness grants for states and $1,107 $564 $1,704 local jurisdictions as a means to $2,267 Department: meet the national strategy and is $2,976 the current federal awarding agency Ag ricu lt u re $25,503 for the Homeland Security Grant S t at e $4,300 Program. The OG&T administers En erg y Ot h er agencies the Homeland Security Grant Ju st ice Program through the issuance of an Healt h and Human $16,441 annual Homeland Security Grant S ervices Program: Program Guidelines and D ef en se Application Kit, which provides Ho melan d Security states and local jurisdictions with information and instructions to aid Total $54,862 them in the application process and Source: U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government Fiscal Year 2007. help them in homeland security planning, and developing and implementing state and local homeland security strategies. Before the DHS was created, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Emergency Management Agency managed the programs that make up the Homeland Security Grant Program. The Program provides funding to enhance the capacity of state and local jurisdictions to prevent, respond to, and recover from incidents of terrorism involving chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or explosive weapons, and attacks on computer information systems.
State of Arizona--In 2003, Arizona developed a plan called Securing Arizona: A
Roadmap for Arizona Homeland Security (Roadmap) to establish a long-term approach to homeland security. This plan provided a framework for strengthening the State's ability to detect, prevent, and respond to future acts of terrorism or other critical incidents. It also created the initial strategy for planning, prioritizing, and coordinating requests for funding. The plan called for the appointment of a Homeland Security Director and the creation of the Arizona Governor's Office of Homeland Security (AOHS). In addition to the 2003 Roadmap, the State also develops an annual State Homeland Security Strategy, as required by the DHS, which provides strategic direction for enhancing regional capability, capacity, and collaboration to prevent terrorist attacks within Arizona and reduce Arizona's vulnerability to terrorism and all other critical hazards that affect the safety, wellbeing, quality of life, and economic security of its citizens and residents. The strategy builds from the 2003 Roadmap. The AOHS and the Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs, Division of Emergency Management (ADEM) serve as the liaisons between the DHS and
Office of the Auditor General
page
3
state agencies and local jurisdictions within Arizona. The AOHS coordinates the allocation process of federal funding to state and local jurisdictions and approves projects ensuring compliance with federal grant guidelines and support of Arizona's homeland security strategy. Based on approved projects, the ADEM distributes the federal monies to all participating jurisdictions in the State, including other state agencies, counties, cities and towns, fire districts, and Native American tribes. During grant years 2003 through 2006, the State of Arizona was awarded homeland security funding under the following programs:
State Law
Homeland Security Program
Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program Areas Security Initiative Medical Response System
Urban
Metropolitan Citizen
Corps Program Management Performance Grants
Emergency
The objectives of each program are described in more detail in Chapter 2 of this report.
Other audit reports--In addition to this special financial audit, three other audits
of the State's Homeland Security Grant Program have been performed since January 1, 2006. first audit was completed by the Office of the Auditor General and was issued on April 27, 2006. This audit focused on whether the AOHS and the ADEM complied with federal rules and regulations applicable to the Program during fiscal year 2005. No unallowable program costs were noted during the audit; however, weaknesses were noted in the internal controls established to administer the Program. Additional information on these weaknesses is detailed in Chapter 4 of this report.
The
second audit was completed by the Arizona Department of Transportation, Office of the Inspector General, and the report was issued on June 1, 2006. This audit focused on the overall efficiency of the State's administration of the Homeland Security Grant Program. Weaknesses were noted in the processes established by the AOHS and the ADEM to review and approve homeland security projects. In addition, the report notes that the AOHS' planning process and the ADEM's fiscal administration were not always well coordinated, and a monitoring process had not been established
The
State of Arizona
page
4
to ensure state agencies and local jurisdictions were spending monies in accordance with program requirements. third audit was completed by the Arizona Department of Administration, General Accounting Office, with one report being issued on July 21, 2006, and a second report being issued on August 11, 2006. This audit primarily focused on evaluating the controls established by the AOHS and the ADEM to disburse homeland security monies. The report notes weaknesses in internal controls and instances of noncompliance with federal requirements.
The
Scope and methodology
This special financial audit focused on the federal homeland security grant programs the State received from the DHS. In conducting this audit, auditors used a variety of methods, including analyzing applicable federal regulations pertaining to the programs, interviewing personnel responsible for administering the programs, and examining various records and data maintained by the AOHS and the ADEM. In addition, auditors reviewed audit reports issued by the Arizona Department of Transportation, Office of the Inspector General; Arizona Department of Administration, General Accounting Office; U.S. Congressional Research Service; and the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Specifically: determine the amount of homeland security monies spent on administrative functions, auditors obtained cost information from the Arizona Financial Information System based on program cost account information provided by the ADEM.
T o T o
determine the Homeland Security Director's salary and the positions held by the Director within state government, auditors analyzed information from the State's Human Resource Information Solution system and the Human Resource Management System.
T determine the amount of homeland security monies received and retained by o
the State, and the amount spent or encumbered by the State, counties, cities, and towns for each year, auditors obtained the federal grant award notification sheets, the ADEM budget sheets, and the ADEM's internal records that list specific project expenditures. However, auditors noted that these internal records were not reconciled by the ADEM to the Arizona Financial Information System to ensure their completeness and accuracy.
Office of the Auditor General
page
5
determine the methodology used to review, approve, and allocate homeland security monies to local jurisdictions, auditors reviewed federal grant guidelines, interviewed program administrators, and reviewed documented program procedures. compile an itemization of state and local projects that have received homeland security monies each year, auditors obtained program budgets and project proposal sheets for each grant year and program from the AOHS and the ADEM. The budget and proposal sheets were not reconciled to the underlying local jurisdiction records. Instead, auditors performed analytical procedures using the financial data and narrative information about the uses of federal homeland security monies and interviewed program administrators about differences or variances. Auditors corrected data errors prior to reporting project information and budget data.
T o
T o
Engagement limitations
Auditors were unable to obtain all of the information detailed in the approved audit request due to the manner in which some Homeland Security Grant Programs are allocated to local jurisdictions, deficiencies in the records maintained by the State, and the large number of projects awarded during the audit period. Specifically, auditors were unable to obtain a description of the goals and objectives for every project or determine whether the funding awarded for projects was allowable under the permissible use of federal homeland security monies for the following reasons: AOHS awarded some grants to local jurisdictions in a lump sum based on specified formulas. Detailed project records for these grants were maintained by the applicable local jurisdiction and not the State. The following grants were awarded in this manner: 2003 State Homeland Security Program, and the 2003 through 2005 Urban Areas Security Initiative, Citizens Corps, and Emergency Management Performance Grants.
The
AOHS and the ADEM did not always maintain sufficient records detailing the goals and objectives of every state agency project due to staff turnover, filing errors, and oversight. State agency project records were not sufficient for the following programs: 2003 and 2004 Urban Areas Security Initiative, and the 2004 State Homeland Security Program and Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program.
The
DHS did not award five of the 2006 programs (State Homeland Security Program, Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, Urban Areas Security Initiative, Metropolitan Medical Response System, and Citizen Corps) to Arizona until July 2006. The AOHS and the ADEM did not allocate these monies to state
The
State of Arizona
page
6
agencies and local jurisdictions for individual projects until August 30, 2006, which was in accordance with the requirements established by the DHS. However, this was not in time for auditors to include the specific project's goals and objectives in this report. Arizona did receive the Emergency Management Performance Grants from the DHS in February 2006, and allocated these monies between the State and counties. Auditors did not include the specific allocations made for the 2006 Emergency Management Performance Grants in this report to ensure that consistent information is presented for all grant year 2006 programs. For grant year 2006, information regarding the amount awarded to the State for each program, and the monies the AOHS and the ADEM allocated between the State and the local jurisdictions (in total) for each program, was available and is included in the report. grant years 2003 through 2005 the AOHS and the ADEM awarded monies for approximately 450 homeland security projects to about 200 state agencies and local jurisdictions. Auditors performed detailed test work on a sample of 58 program expenditures during the fiscal year 2005 single audit for the State of Arizona to determine the allowability of project expenditures. These expenditures were selected from the grant year 2003 and 2004 State Homeland Security Program, the grant year 2004 Citizens Corps Program, and the grant year 2004 and 2005 Emergency Management Performance Grants. Auditors reported no unallowable expenditures as a result of this test work; however, auditors reported weaknesses in the internal controls established to administer the homeland security grant programs. The weaknesses noted are mentioned in Chapter 4 of this report.
For
The Auditor General and staff express their appreciation to the Director of Homeland Security, the Department of Emergency and Military Affairs Adjutant General, and the staff of the Arizona Governor's Office of Homeland Security and the Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs, Division of Emergency Management for their cooperation and assistance during this audit.
Office of the Auditor General
page
7
State of Arizona
page
8
CHAPTER 1
Administration of Arizona's Homeland Security Grant Program
The State's Director of Homeland Security is appointed by the Governor and is responsible for managing the AOHS and the ADEM. Both the AOHS and the ADEM are responsible for administering Arizona's Homeland Security Grant Program. The AOHS is primarily responsible for the overall planning and coordination of the State's homeland security efforts and the ADEM is responsible for performing the administrative functions necessary to manage the Program. Federal regulations allow the AOHS and the ADEM to incur costs for planning and organization, equipment, training, exercises, and management and administration.
Homeland Security Director's responsibilities
The Director of Homeland Security was appointed by the Governor in February 2003 and serves as the director of both the AOHS and the ADEM. Overall, the Director is responsible for leading Arizona's homeland security and emergency management efforts. As the Director of the AOHS, he is responsible for ensuring that Arizona is safe from terrorism and that protocols are established with federal, state, and local agencies in the event of terrorist activity or other emergencies. He is also responsible for developing and executing the State's homeland security strategy. As director of the ADEM, he is responsible for coordinating a multiple-agency response to largescale disasters in Arizona. Table 1 shows the Director's salary received for each fiscal year since 2003. In addition, prior to his employment with the State, he received $8,000 for consulting services on matters pertaining to homeland security performed in January 2003. From fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2006, the Director did not hold any additional positions in state government that added to his salary.
Table 1:
Director's Salary (Unaudited)
Fiscal Year
20031 2004 2005 2006
Salary Received
$ 37,424 115,083 124,847 129,635
1
The Director was appointed in February 2003.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of fiscal years 2003 through 2006 information obtained from the State of Arizona Human Resources Management System and the Human Resource Information Solution System.
Office of the Auditor General
page
9
Arizona Office of Homeland Security responsibilities
The AOHS is responsible for planning and coordinating homeland security efforts among state, federal, local, tribal, and border community agencies and entities. In addition, the AOHS advises the Governor on all homeland security matters, and oversees the allocation process of Arizona's share of monies received for the Homeland Security Grant Program. The primary focus of the AOHS is the planning function, which includes developing the State's annual homeland security strategy and coordinating the allocation of grant monies for individual homeland security projects. The AOHS is also responsible for encouraging collaboration of efforts, helping to avoid duplication of grant awards, and eliminating any security gaps between the various levels of government and the private sector.
Division of Emergency Management responsibilities
The Governor has designated the ADEM as the state administering agency (SAA) for Arizona's Homeland Security Grant Program. As the SAA, the ADEM is responsible for fiscal functions such as processing invoices for reimbursement, maintaining financial records and information, and overseeing and monitoring program expenditures. In addition, the ADEM is responsible for providing technical assistance and other support to state agencies and local jurisdictions to aid them in managing their homeland security projects. The Homeland Security Grants Management section within the ADEM is the central point of contact for the Homeland Security Grant Program. However, other sections within the ADEM also aid in planning and managing the program by executing exercises in areas such as counterterrorism and emergency preparedness and providing training to state agency and local jurisdiction personnel. Prior to the establishment of the AOHS, the ADEM was the primary homeland security grant-administering agency for the State.
Program costs
The DHS has divided Homeland Security Grant Program costs into four broad categories: planning, equipment, training, and exercises. In addition, federal regulations support select organization activities for the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program and the Urban Areas Securities Initiative program (e.g., overtime costs associated with increased security measures at critical infrastructure sites during periods of heightened alert and overtime costs for personnel or contractors to participate in information, investigative, and intelligence-sharing activities). Federal regulations do not restrict the allocation of monies across the planning, equipment, training, and exercise categories. The allowable costs have changed throughout the
State of Arizona
page
10
years for the various grant programs within the above categories. For grant year 2006, examples of allowable costs under each category are as follows: P Planning costs--Implement and manage program for equipment acquisitions, training, and exercises; materials and meeting-related expenses; develop plans, protocols, and assessments; implement homeland security support programs and adopt DHS national initiatives; hire full-time or part-time staff or consultants to assist with any related planning activities; E Equipment costs--Personal protective equipment; cyber-security enhancement equipment; chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive incident response vehicles and aviation equipment; inspection and screening systems; T Training costs--Training workshops and conferences; creation and maintenance of student databases; travel and supplies; and E Exercise costs--Designing, developing, conducting, and evaluating exercises; expenses related to exercise planning workshops, and travel and supplies. Grant participants are also allowed to incur management and administrative costs (M&A) within certain limits. The percentage and types of M&A costs allowed are specified by the DHS and have varied between grant years. For example, in grant year 2006, federal regulations allowed up to 5 percent of each homeland security grant program for M&A costs, and for grant year 2005, regulations limited M&A costs to no more than 3 percent of each program. For grant year 2006, federal regulations permit the following types of M&A costs: M Management and administrative costs-- S Staffing--Full-time or part-time staff, contractors, or consultants and the related expenses; P Planning--Developing operating plans for information collection and processing necessary to respond to the DHS, Office of Domestic Preparedness requests for information; O Overtime--Expenses for overtime work performed by employees related to M&A activities; T Travel--Expenses related to travel; M Meeting-related expenses-- Registration costs, publicity, food, and nonalcoholic beverages (subject to certain limits). Meetings under this guidance are considered formal events involving topics that will contribute to improved conduct, supervision, or management of the agency's
Office of the Auditor General
page
11
activities and are beyond a regular business meeting consisting of routine day-to-day items. Meetings also encompass conferences, conventions, seminars, training for contractors, and workshops. O Office equipment--Purchase of authorized office equipment such as personal computers, laptop computers, printers, liquid crystal display (LCD) projectors, and other equipment required to support the homeland security strategy; and F Fees and charges--Recurring fees or charges associated with certain equipment such as cell phones, fax machines, and space rental or lease. As the administering agency, the ADEM performs the administrative functions for the Homeland Security Grant Program and incurs the State's M&A costs. As noted before, planning and organization are the primary duties of the AOHS. These activities are not considered M&A activities by the DHS and are not limited. Table 2 shows the total amount of the ADEM's Table 2: ADEM Management and Administrative M&A expenditures as of June 30, 2006, by grant year. The Expenditures and Grant Award M&A expenditures have decreased since grant year 2003 Amounts by Grant Year because most of the grant awards have not been fully (Unaudited) expended and the ADEM is still incurring M&A costs. As a result, auditors could not determine whether the ADEM had State complied with the M&A limits established by the DHS for Grant M&A Grant each grant year. Such a determination would not be possible Year Expenditures Award until the ADEM closes a grant year and an audit is conducted 2003 $ 623,099 $ 53,124,845 2004 317,298 56,648,308 to determine that all applicable costs have been properly 2005 335,818 41,704,818 recorded and classified.
2006 Total 188,820 $1,465,0351 23,483,779 $174,961,750
1
The State has spent less than 1 percent of the $175 million awarded for M&A costs from grant years 2003 through 2006.
Source: Auditor General staff compilation of information obtained from the Arizona Financial Information System for grant years 2003 through 2006.
State of Arizona
page
12
CHAPTER 2
Characteristics of the Homeland Security Grant Program
During grant years 2003 through 2006, the State of Arizona has been awarded monies from the federal government for six homeland security grant programs. Together these programs compose the State's Homeland Security Grant Program. Each program has unique goals and objectives and together, they provide monies to help the State prevent, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism.
Arizona's Homeland Security Grant Program
During grant years 2003 through 2006, the State of Arizona has Table 3: Date the Grant Program Was Awarded to Arizona been awarded monies for the State by the Federal Government Homeland Security Program, Law Grant Year Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program 2003 2004 2005 2006 Program, Urban Areas Security State Homeland Security July 2003 Program Initiative, Metropolitan Medical Urban Areas Security August 2003 Response System, Citizens Corps, Initiative June 2004 and the Emergency Management July 2006 Citizen Corps Performance Grants from the March 2005 Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program federal government. As shown in N/A Metropolitan Medical N/A Table 3, the federal government Response System did not make awards to the State Emergency Management June 2003 March 2004 February until one-half to three-quarters of Performance Grants 2006 the way through the federal fiscal Source: Federal grant award notifications obtained from the ADEM for grant years 2003 through 2006. year. Upon receipt of the grant award, the State must allocate some grants to state agencies and local jurisdictions for individual projects. For example, in grant year 2006 the State was allowed 60 days to allocate the State Homeland Security Program, Urban Areas Security Initiative, and Law Enforcement
Office of the Auditor General
page
13
Methods the DHS used to award monies:
State Homeland Security Program and Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program--A base allocation is made to each participant and remaining monies are awarded based on a federal risk formula and the effectiveness of a participant's proposed solutions to their identified needs. Urban Areas Security Initiative--All awards are allocated to participants based on a federal risk formula and the effectiveness of a participant's proposed solutions to their identified needs. Metropolitan Medical Response System--Awards are distributed equally among participants. Citizen Corps Program and Emergency Management Performance Grants--A base allocation is made to each participant and remaining monies are awarded based on population.
Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security program guidelines.
Terrorism Prevention Program. In addition, most of the homeland security programs have at least a 2-year performance period to spend the grant monies. The State also receives the monies on a reimbursement basis. As such, state agencies and local jurisdictions must expend the monies upfront and then request reimbursement from the federal government. These factors, coupled with the difficulty experienced by grant participants in procuring equipment due to limited supplies, have caused delays in expending the homeland security grant award monies. In fiscal year 2005, the DHS consolidated the six homeland security programs into a single program cluster called the Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP). The DHS combined the programs into the HSGP to better facilitate and coordinate the management of funding and reflect the intent of Congress to enhance security and overall preparedness to prevent, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism. Within the HSGP each of , the six programs continues to receive a separate funding allocation. The textbox to the left shows the methods used by the DHS to award monies to program participants for grant year 2006. As shown in Table 4 below, the DHS awarded nearly $175 million to the State of Arizona for grant years 2003 through 2006.
Table 4:
Arizona Homeland Security Grant Program Award Amounts Grant Years 2003 through 2006
Grant Year 2004 2005
$31,304,000 9,289,000 12,128,223 0 650,000 3,277,085 $56,648,308 $20,021,731 7,280,630 9,996,463 910,368 254,176 3,241,450 $41,704,818
Program
State Homeland Security Program Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program1 Urban Areas Security Initiative Metropolitan Medical Response System2 Citizen Corps Program Emergency Management Performance Grants Total
1 2
2003
$38,617,000 0 11,033,467 0 351,339 3,123,039 $53,124,845
2006
$ 8,660,000 6,290,000 3,920,000 929,320 371,645 3,312,814 $23,483,779
Total
$ 98,602,731 22,859,630 37,078,153 1,839,688 1,627,160 12,954,388 $174,961,750
The Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program was first awarded by the DHS in grant year 2004. The DHS awarded the Metropolitan Medical Response System monies directly to local jurisdictions prior to grant year 2005.
Source: Federal grant award notifications obtained from the ADEM for grant years 2003 through 2006.
State of Arizona
page
14
Program goals and objectives
Each of the programs received by the State has unique goals and objectives and together they provide monies to help the State prevent, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism. An overview of the goals and objectives of each program included in the Homeland Security Grant Program, along with the amount of monies that the State and local jurisdictions have expended for each program by grant year, follows.
State Homeland Security Program (SHSP)--The SHSP provides financial
assistance directly to each of the states to prevent, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism. The SHSP also provides states with the opportunity to increase regional preparedness efforts through planning and response arrangements between jurisdictions. With the purpose of enhancing the capability of state and local agencies to prevent and respond to incidents of terrorism, the SHSP supports costs related to homeland security and emergency operations planning activities; the purchase of specialized equipment (e.g., x-ray machines, incident response vehicles, satellite data equipment, position locating and tracking systems, and robotic bomb equipment); and costs related to the design, development, conduct, and evaluation of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosives exercises and training. All SHSP monies must be used to support the State's homeland security strategy. From grant year 2003 through grant year 2006, Arizona has been awarded almost $99 million in SHSP monies. As of June 30, 2006, the State and local jurisdictions have spent approximately 65 percent of the grant year 2003 through 2005 monies awarded. The DHS did not allow the State to draw monies from the 2006 grant award until August 28, 2006. Figure 2 below shows, by grant year, the amount expended and the unspent award balance.
Figure 2: Arizona SHSP Amounts Expended and Unspent Award Balances
Grant Years 2003 through 2006 (Unaudited)
$45 $40 $35 $30 $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 $0
Total: $98,602,731
$38,617,000 $31,304,000 $20,021,731 $8,660,000
(in millions)
2003
2004
2005
2006
Gran t Year
Exp en d ed Unspent Balance
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of information obtained from the Arizona Financial Information System for fiscal years 2003 through 2006, the ADEM's summary of funds report as of June 30, 2006, and federal grant award notifications for grant years 2003 through 2006.
Office of the Auditor General
page
15
Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP)--The LETPP
provides law enforcement communities with monies to enhance capabilities for detecting, deterring, disrupting, and preventing acts of terrorism. These capabilities include increasing the following prevention activities: sharing information to preempt terrorist Figure 3: Arizona LETPP Amounts Expended attacks; target hardening (i.e., reducing the and Unspent Award Balances vulnerability of selected high-value targets by ensuring Grant Years 2004 through 2006 that buildings and operations are as resilient as (Unaudited) possible to unforeseen events or failures); identifying Total: $22,859,630 potential or developing threats; planning $14 counterterrorism and security activities; developing $12 $9,289,000 interoperable communications that can work with and $10 $7,280,630 use other systems to operate; and developing $8 $6,290,000 intervention activities that prevent terrorists from $6 executing a threat. These monies may be used for $4 planning, organizing, training, performing exercises, $2 and purchasing equipment, and are dedicated solely $0 to law enforcement and public safety agencies. The 2004 2005 2006 DHS first awarded the LETPP during grant year 2004. Gran t Year Since that time, the State has been awarded almost Exp en d ed Unspent Balance $23 million for the LETPP As of June 30, 2006, . approximately 30 percent of the grant year 2003 Source: Auditor General staff analysis of information obtained from the Arizona Financial Information System for fiscal years 2004 through 2006, the ADEM's summary of through 2005 awards had been spent by the State and funds report as of June 30, 2006, and federal grant award notifications for grant years local jurisdictions. The DHS did not allow the State to 2004 through 2006. draw monies from the 2006 grant award until August 28, 2006. Figure 3 shows, by grant year, the amount expended and the unspent award balance.
( in millions)
Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI)--The
UASI provides financial assistance to address the unique needs of large metropolitan areas through planning, equipment, training, and exercises, and to assist them in building and sustaining capabilities to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from incidents of terrorism. Urban areas must allocate all program monies in support of goals and objectives identified in their urban area homeland security strategy and state homeland security strategy. Arizona has one defined urban area, Phoenix, which includes the cities within Maricopa County and the Gila River Indian Community, Salt River-Pima Indian Community, and Fort McDowell Indian Tribe portions that lie within Maricopa County. As of June 30, 2006, the State and local jurisdictions have spent approximately 44 percent of UASI monies awarded during grant years 2003 through 2005. The DHS did not allow the State to draw monies from the 2006 grant award until August 28, 2006. Figure 4 (see page 17) shows, by grant year, the amount expended and the unspent award balance.
State of Arizona
page
16
Figure 4: Arizona UASI Amounts Expended and Unspent Award Balances
Grant Years 2003 through 2006 (Unaudited)
$14 $12 (in millions) $10 $8 $6 $4 $2 $0 2003 2004 2005 2006
$3,920,000 $11,033,467
Total: $37,078,153
$12,128,223 $9,996,463
Gran t Year
Exp en d ed Unspent Balance
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of information obtained from the Arizona Financial Information System for fiscal years 2003 through 2006, the ADEM's summary of funds report as of June 30, 2006, and federal grant award notifications for grant years 2003 through 2006.
Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS)--This
program supports designated jurisdictions to further enhance and sustain their casualty incident preparedness to respond to mass casualty events during the first hours of a response, the time Figure 5: Arizona MMRS Amounts Expended crucial to lifesaving and population protection, until and Unspent Award Balances significant external assistance can arrive. There are Grant Years 2005 and 2006 four designated MMRS jurisdictions within Arizona: (Unaudited) Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix, and Tucson. The MMRS Total: $1,839,688 program provides monies for planning, organizing, $1,200 $929,320 $910,368 training, and purchasing equipment to enhance local $1,000 jurisdictions' abilities to respond to mass casualty $800 incidents resulting from terrorist attacks, epidemic $600 outbreaks, natural disasters, and large-scale $400 hazardous materials incidents. In grant years 2003 and $200 2004, the federal government awarded the MMRS $0 directly to the local MMRS jurisdictions. For grant years 2005 2006 2005 and 2006, these monies were awarded directly to Gran t Year the State. The State has approximately 87 percent of Exp en d ed Unspent Balance the grant year 2005 award remaining as of June 30, Source: Auditor General staff analysis of information obtained from the 2006. The DHS did not allow the State to draw monies Arizona Financial Information System for fiscal years 2005 and from the 2006 grant award until August 28, 2006. 2006, the ADEM's summary of funds report as of June 30, 2006, and federal grant award notifications for grant years 2005 and 2006. Figure 5 shows, by grant year, the amount expended and the unspent award balance.
(in thousands)
Office of the Auditor General
page
17
Citizen Corps Program (CCP)--The CCP is the DHS' plan to actively involve
all citizens in hometown security through personal preparedness, training, and volunteer service. These monies are used to support Citizen Corps Councils with efforts to engage citizens in preventing, preparing for, and responding to all hazards, including planning and evaluation, public education and communication, training, participation in exercises, providing proper equipment to citizens with a role in response, and management of Citizen Corps volunteer programs and activities. The State and local jurisdictions have spent just over $1 million of the grant year 2003 through 2005 awards, as of June 30, 2006, to help educate and prepare citizens in case of a catastrophic event. The DHS did not allow the State to draw monies from the 2006 grant award until August 28, 2006. Figure 6 shows, by grant year, the amount expended and the unspent award balance.
Figure 6: Arizona CCP Amounts Expended and Unspent Award Balances
Grant Years 2003 through 2006 (Unaudited)
$700 (in thousands) $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $0 2003 2004 2005 2006
$351,339 $254,176 $371,645
Total: $1,627,160
$650,000
Gran t Year
Exp en d ed Unspent Balance
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of information obtained from the Arizona Financial Information System for fiscal years 2003 through 2006, the ADEM's summary of funds report as of June 30, 2006, and federal grant award notifications for grant years 2003 through 2006.
Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG)--The
EMPG program supports comprehensive emergency management at the state and local levels and gives states the ability to sustain and enhance the effectiveness of their emergency management programs. The EMPG is used primarily to partially fund state and local emergency management programs, with a 50 percent state costshare requirement. Most EMPG monies are budgeted for salary, travel, supplies, and other routine expenditures for operational activities. However, the EMPG
State of Arizona
page
18
enables states to develop emergency management systems that encourage partnerships among government, business, volunteer, and community organizations based on identified needs and priorities for strengthening their emergency management and catastrophic planning capabilities. Arizona has increased its emergency management support capabilities with the aid of the EMPG program. As of June 30, 2006, the State and local jurisdictions have spent approximately 89 percent of the monies awarded from grant years 2003 through 2006. Figure 7 shows, by grant year, the amount expended and the unspent award balance.
Figure 7: Arizona EMPG Amounts Expended and Unspent Award Balances
Grant Years 2003 through 2006 (Unaudited)
$4,000 $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0
Total: $12,954,388
$3,123,039 $3,277,085 $3,241,450 $3,312,814
(in thousands)
2003
2004
2005
2006
Gran t Year
Exp en d ed Unspent Balance
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of information obtained from the Arizona Financial Information System for fiscal years 2003 through 2006, the ADEM's summary of funds report as of June 30, 2006, and federal grant award notifications for grant years 2003 through 2006.
Homeland security grant awards declining--Table 5 (see page 20) shows
that Arizona's funding for the homeland security grant programs has declined by almost 60 percent between grant years 2003 and 2006, having peaked at almost $57 million in 2004 and declining to $23.5 million in 2006. In addition, of the $175 million awarded for the Homeland Security Grant Program, the State and local jurisdictions have spent just over half of the awards as of June 30, 2006, with the remaining amount obligated to state agencies and local jurisdictions for projects that further enhance and secure the State.
Office of the Auditor General
page
19
Table 5:
Total Homeland Security Grant Program Monies Awarded, Expended, and Unspent by Program Grant Years 2003 through 2006 (Unaudited)
Unspent Balances Program
SHSP UASI
Awarded Amount
$ 38,617,000 11,033,467 351,339 3,123,039 $ 53,124,845 $ 31,304,000 9,289,000 12,128,223 650,000 3,277,085 $ 56,648,308 $ 20,021,731 7,280,630 9,996,463 910,368 254,176 3,241,450 $ 41,704,818 $ 8,660,000 6,290,000 3,920,000 929,320 371,645 3,312,814 $ 23,483,779 $174,961,750
Expended Amount
$37,500,277 9,726,849 351,339 3,123,039 $50,701,504 $16,647,073 4,609,033 4,603,931 647,681 3,277,031 $29,784,749 $ 4,189,646 302,251 191,180 116,968 46,535 3,114,699 $ 7,961,279
Amount
$ 1,116,723 1,306,618
Percent
2.89% 11.84 0.00 0.00
Average Percent
2003
CCP EMPG Totals SHSP LETPP UASI CCP EMPG Totals SHSP LETPP UASI
$ 2,423,341 $14,656,927 4,679,967 7,524,292 2,319 54 $26,863,559 $15,832,085 6,978,379 9,805,283 793,400 207,641 126,751 $33,743,539 $ 8,660,000 6,290,000 3,920,000 929,320 371,645 100.00% 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 39.04 79.07% 95.85 98.09 87.15 81.69 3.91 46.82% 50.38 62.04 0.36 0.00
4.56%
2004
47.42%
2005
MMRS CCP EMPG Totals SHSP LETPP UASI
80.91%
2006
MMRS CCP EMPG Totals
$ 2,019,586 $ 2,019,586 $90,467,118
1,293,228 $21,464,193 $84,494,632
91.40% 48.29%
Combined Grant Years Totals
Source: Auditor General staff compilation of information obtained from the Arizona Financial Information System for fiscal years 2003 through 2006, the ADEM's summary of funds report as of June 30, 2006, and federal grant award notifications for grant years 2003 through 2006.
State of Arizona
page
20
CHAPTER 3
Homeland Security grant allocation process
Annually, the AOHS coordinates with state agencies, local and tribal governments, and nongovernmental organizations to develop a state strategy that addresses the risks of terrorist and catastrophic events and the capabilities and needs of the State to respond to such events. Based on the objectives set forth in the state strategy, the AOHS submits a state-wide proposal to the DHS requesting homeland security funding. The DHS evaluates proposals submitted by all applicants, determines the funding awarded for each homeland security grant program, and notifies participants of their grant awards. Once awarded, the AOHS and the ADEM allocate monies between the state and the local jurisdictions based on the DHS requirements. After this allocation, the AOHS and the ADEM determine their costs related to planning, exercises, training, equipment, and administration that will be funded with the monies allocated to the State. Any remaining state monies are then distributed to state agencies for individual homeland security projects. Monies allocated to local jurisdictions are awarded to the jurisdictions based on a lump-sum allocation or for individual homeland security projects. The allocation process used to award local jurisdiction monies is unique for each grant program.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security allocation requirements
When allocating Homeland Security Grant Program monies to state agencies and local jurisdictions, the AOHS and the ADEM must follow requirements imposed by the DHS. The requirements imposed by the DHS for allocating the monies have changed from grant year 2003 through grant year 2006. The DHS allocation requirements between the state and local jurisdictions imposed for the grant year 2006 award are as follows. S State Homeland Security Program, Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, and Urban Areas Security Initiative--At least 80 percent of the total grant award must be allocated to local jurisdictions. If requested in writing by the
Office of the Auditor General
page
21
local jurisdictions, the State may retain a portion of the local jurisdictions' allocation provided the State uses the monies to directly support the local jurisdictions. Occasionally, local jurisdictions may request the State to retain a portion of their funding to provide comprehensive training and exercises that the local jurisdictions do not have the staff or knowledge to provide, or to help procure equipment items that the State can obtain at better prices. M Metropolitan Medical Response System--The DHS specifies the award amount for each local MMRS jurisdiction. Arizona has four local MMRS jurisdictions: Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix, and Tucson. If approved by the MMRS jurisdictions, the State may retain up to 20 percent of the program funding to facilitate strategy and capability integration between the State and the local MMRS jurisdictions. However, the DHS encourages states to pass the entire MMRS program funding directly to the specified jurisdiction. C Citizen Corps Program and Emergency Management Performance Grants-- The DHS imposes no allocation requirements for these programs. As a result, the State may retain the entire grant award.
Arizona's allocation processes
The allocation processes used by the AOHS and the ADEM for the homeland security grant programs have changed from grant years 2003 through 2006. Modifications in the allocation processes are due to changes in the federal regulations applicable to the programs, and the AOHS and the ADEM refining and formalizing their processes. For grant year 2006, the AOHS used the same process to allocate grant monies for state agency projects for all homeland security grants. Grant awards for local jurisdiction projects followed a unique process for each grant because committees and councils representing the local jurisdictions help determine the individual projects awarded monies for most grants. The following sections provide more detail on the allocation processes used by the AOHS and the ADEM for each grant program for grant year 2006. Figure 8 (see pages 32 through 33) summarizes the allocation process by grant program.
State Homeland Security Program and Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program allocation process
To allocate the SHSP and the LETPP awards, the AOHS divides the award as required by the DHS with at least 80 percent being allocated to local jurisdictions through a regional approach and the remaining award being retained by the State.
State of Arizona
page
22
Regional approach--To implement the regional approach, the AOHS has divided
the State's counties into five regions: Central, East, North, South, and West to aid in distributing Counties Within Arizona's grant monies to local jurisdictions within the Five Regions region. The AOHS allocates monies to each region by providing a base amount and then Central--Maricopa East--Gila, Graham, Greenlee, and Pinal adding an additional amount based on a risk North--Apache, Coconino, and Navajo formula (i.e., risk= threat x vulnerability x South--Cochise, Pima, Santa Cruz, and Yuma population). The components of the risk formula West--La Paz, Mohave, and Yavapai used in the allocation process to the regions is shown in the textbox to the right. The AOHS developed this formula AOHS Risk Formula Components to help ensure that the SHSP and the LETPP monies are allocated to local jurisdictions with the greatest Risk= Threat נVulnerability נPopulation overall risk.
State monies--The
Threat = monies retained by the AOHS Total number of potential threat elements in Arizona and the ADEM are used for planning, equipment, training, and exercise costs. As noted before, federal Number of critical infrastructure sites within region regulations do not restrict the allocation of monies Vulnerability = Total number of critical infrastructure sites in Arizona across these categories. Monies are also used by the ADEM for management and administrative costs, Number of persons within region which are limited by federal regulations. The ADEM Population = Total number of persons in Arizona develops a budget based on input received from officials within the AOHS and the ADEM. The budget details the anticipated planning costs of the AOHS and the anticipated planning, equipment, training, exercise, and management and administration costs of the ADEM. The AOHS and the ADEM hold a funding strategy meeting between the Director, Deputy Directors, Assistant Directors, and the Homeland Security Grant Administrator to review and approve the proposed budget. Any remaining monies not retained by the AOHS and the ADEM are allocated to other state agencies for individual homeland security projects.
Number of potential threat elements within region
Table 6 (see page 24) provides an example of how a $1 million grant award from the DHS for the grant year 2006 SHSP would be allocated between the regions and the State. As shown in the table, the first step involves allocating at least 80 percent of the award to the regions for distribution to local jurisdictions. Next, the AOHS and the ADEM determine how the monies retained by the State will be used.
Project funding--After the initial allocations to the regions and to the AOHS and
the ADEM, the AOHS makes a further allocation to fund individual projects proposed by state agencies and local jurisdictions by using the following processes. S State agency projects--State agencies submit projects to the AOHS for review and approval. The Assistant Director of Strategic Policy at the AOHS
Office of the Auditor General
page
23
Table 6:
Example of a $1 Million SHSP Award Allocation in 2006
$1,000,000 award amount
$1,000,000 award would be allocated 80% to Regions and 20% to State Agencies
(Includes a base amount of $360,000 and a risk amount of $440,000)
80% Regional Allocation $800,000
Example: Central region's allocation: Base amount + Risk amount $72,000 + $226,600 = $298,600 Base amount: $360,000 ?regions = $72,000 Risk amount: $440,000 נ0.515 = $226,600
$1,000,000 נ80% = $800,000 Risk Regions Factor
Central East North South West 0.515 0.043 0.078 0.280 0.084 $ 298,600 90,920 106,320 195,200 108,960
$800,000 Remaining award for distribution to ADEM, AOHS, and other state agencies $1,000,000 ? $800,000 = $200,000 Allocated to ADEM and AOHS:
20% State Agency Allocation $200,000
Management and administration costs (5%) $1,000,000 נ5% = $50,000 Planning Exercises Training Equipment Total allocated to ADEM and AOHS
$ 50,000
XX,XXX XX,XXX XX,XXX XX,XXX
XXX,XXX XX,XXX
Balance for state agency projects
$200,000
receives all state agency project proposals and reviews them to ensure that they align with the state homeland security strategy and national priorities, support and enhance state capabilities, reduce risk, and comply with federal grant guidelines. The State's current strategy and threat needs determine which projects are of more importance during the current grant cycle. In addition, the Assistant Director looks at projects that were approved in a prior grant year to decide if additional funding is necessary for those projects. The Director of Homeland Security provides the final approval. The ADEM sends letters to state agencies notifying them of their awards. For grant year 2006,
State of Arizona
page
24
state agencies submitted 23 projects for consideration. The Assistant Director recommended 10 projects to the Director of Homeland Security for final approval. The Director reviewed and approved all projects as recommended. L Local jurisdiction projects--As noted earlier, the AOHS has divided the state into five regions. Each of these regions includes the respective local jurisdictions located within that particular region. In 2004, the AOHS established a Regional Advisory Council (RAC) in each region to promote regional collaboration and aid in assessing threats and vulnerabilities to terrorism. Each RAC comprises 10 members consisting of first responders (e.g., police and fire) and elected officials who reside or work in that region. Each member serves a 2-year staggered term. The RAC is responsible for developing, implementing, and maintaining a regional homeland security strategy that aligns with the State's homeland security strategy. The regional strategy provides local jurisdictions and RAC members with direction on how projects will be prioritized. Local jurisdictions submit project proposals to their respective RAC. The members of the RAC review each project proposal to ensure that the project is sufficiently justified, complies with federal grant guidelines, and supports the region's overall homeland security strategy. After the RAC reviews the projects, it prioritizes them and recommends projects to the AOHS for funding. For example, for grant year 2006, local jurisdictions submitted 54 project proposals to the central region RAC. The RAC recommended 21 of these projects to the AOHS for funding. There is one additional step for the LETPP: the law enforcement members of the RAC review the LETPP project proposals first. Projects approved by the law enforcement members are then recommended to the other RAC members for approval. The AOHS planners and staff review the funding recommendations made by the RAC and review each project to ensure that it aligns with the State's homeland security strategy and national priorities, supports and enhances state and local capabilities, reduces risk, and complies with federal grant guidelines. The Director of Homeland Security is then briefed on the proposed projects and provides the final approval. If a project is rejected, the RAC may revise the project or submit an alternate project to the AOHS for review and approval. Upon approval, the ADEM sends letters to the local jurisdictions notifying them of their awards. For grant year 2006, the RACs submitted 119 SHSP and LETPP projects to the AOHS for review and approval. All of the projects were approved by the Director of Homeland Security as submitted.
Office of the Auditor General
page
25
Program summary--For
grant year 2003, the AOHS awarded the SHSP monies to each county in a lump sum. The counties were then responsible for allocating monies to the local jurisdictions within the county for individual projects and retaining project records. As a result, the detailed goals and objectives for each project were not available from the AOHS or the ADEM. Furthermore, neither the AOHS nor the ADEM were able to locate the detailed records for the state agency projects for grant year 2004. Auditors also noted that for grant years 2003 through 2005, the AOHS did not always maintain sufficient documentation to support the approval or rejection of projects submitted by state agencies and local jurisdictions. Table 7 summarizes the allocation of the SHSP and the LETPP monies between the State and local jurisdictions for grant years 2003 through 2006. The attached Appendix details the allocation of the SHSP and the LETPP monies for grant years 2003 through 2005.
Table 7:
SHSP and LETPP Allocations Between the State and Local Jurisdictions Grant Years 2003 through 2006 (Unaudited)
SHSP Allocations State Local Jurisdictions Amount Percent Amount Percent
$ 7,226,400 5,618,034 4,004,346 1,732,000 $18,580,780 19% 18 20 20 19% $31,390,600 25,685,966 16,017,385 6,928,000 $80,021,951 81% 82 80 80 81%
Grant Year
2003 2004 2005 2006 Total all years
Total
$38,617,000 31,304,000 20,021,731 8,660,000 $98,602,731
Grant Year
2003 2004 2005 2006 Total all years
LETPP Allocations State Local Jurisdictions Amount Percent Amount Percent
$ 0 1,857,800 1,456,126 1,258,000 $4,571,926 0% 20 20 20 20% 0 7,431,200 5,824,504 5,032,000 $18,287,704 $ 0% 80 80 80 80% $
Total
0 9,289,000 7,280,630 6,290,000 $22,859,630
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of the ADEM internal records, including budget worksheets and Excel spreadsheets, for grant years 2003 through 2006.
State of Arizona
page
26
Urban Areas Security Initiative allocation process
To allocate the UASI award, the ADEM first divides the award as required by the DHS with at least 80 percent being allocated to Maricopa County for local jurisdiction projects and the remaining award being retained by the AOHS and the ADEM for administrative costs, planning, exercises, training, and distribution to other state agencies for individual projects. The AOHS and the ADEM allocate monies to individual state agency projects using the same process described earlier for the SHSP and the LETPP Allocation of monies to local jurisdiction projects is determined as follows. .
Local jurisdiction projects--The
DHS requires urban areas to establish a committee that is responsible for developing, coordinating, and implementing all program initiatives including strategy development and allocating program monies. Local jurisdictions within the metropolitan Phoenix area submit their project proposals to the UASI steering committee. This committee comprises 25 voting members who represent the jurisdictions within metropolitan Phoenix that are eligible for funding. In addition, there are approximately 25 nonvoting members from surrounding jurisdictions. The members of the Committee review each project proposal to ensure that the project supports the overall UASI strategy and determine the allocation of monies to each project. Committee members submit suitable projects for final approval to the UASI working group, which is composed of the Director of Homeland Security, the Emergency Management Director for Maricopa County, and the Emergency Management Coordinator for the City of Phoenix. Any one of the three members of the working group can reject a project. Maricopa County sends letters to the local jurisdictions notifying them of their award. County retains project information for projects funded with the UASI monies. As a result, the detailed goals and objectives for each project were not available from the AOHS or the ADEM. Table 8: UASI Allocations Furthermore, neither the AOHS Between the State and Local Jurisdictions or the ADEM were able to Grant Years 2003 through 2006 locate the detailed records for (Unaudited) the state agency projects for grant years 2003 and 2004. UASI Allocations Table 8 summarizes the State Local Jurisdictions allocation of the UASI monies Grant Year Amount Percent Amount Percent between the State and local jurisdictions for grant years 2003 through 2006. The attached Appendix details the allocation of the UASI monies to individual state agency projects and to local jurisdictions for grant years 2003 through 2005.
2003 2004 2005 2006 Total all years $2,206,693 2,425,644 1,999,293 784,000 $7,415,630 20% 20 20 20 20% $ 8,826,774 9,702,579 7,997,170 3,136,000 $29,662,523 80% 80 80 80 80%
Program summary--Maricopa
Total
$11,033,467 12,128,223 9,996,463 3,920,000 $37,078,153
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of the ADEM internal records, including budget worksheets and Excel spreadsheets, for grant years 2003 through 2006.
Office of the Auditor General
page
27
Metropolitan Medical Response System allocation process
The DHS specifies the award amount that each local MMRS jurisdiction (Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix, and Tucson) is to receive. Program guidelines allow the ADEM to retain a portion of the grant award, with the approval of the MMRS steering committee, for administrative and management costs incurred. The remainder of the allocation goes to the local MMRS jurisdictions. The AOHS and the MMRS steering committee use the following process to allocate monies for local jurisdiction projects.
Local jurisdiction projects--The AOHS first allocates the monies available to the
local MMRS jurisdictions (i.e., Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix, and Tucson) based on the dollar amount specified by the DHS for allocation to each jurisdiction. As required by the DHS, the MMRS jurisdictions have established a state-wide MMRS steering committee that is responsible for developing, coordinating, and implementing all program initiatives including strategy development and allocating program monies. Local jurisdictions within the recognized metropolitan areas submit their project proposals to the state-wide MMRS steering committee for approval. The state-wide committee comprises eight members, two members from each local MMRS jurisdiction. The members of the committee review each project proposal to ensure that the project supports the overall MMRS strategy and to determine the allocation of monies to each project. The Committee then sends the approved projects to the ADEM. The ADEM Homeland Security Grant Administrator reviews the project descriptions and ensures that the project falls within program guidelines. The MMRS steering Table 9: MMRS Allocations committee then notifies the Between the State and Local Jurisdictions jurisdictions of the grant awards. Grant Years 2005 and 2006 (Unaudited) Program summary--Table 9 summarizes the allocation of the MMRS monies between the State and MMRS Allocations local MMRS jurisdictions for grant State Local Jurisdictions Total Grant Year Amount Percent Amount Percent years 2005 and 2006. The attached 2005 $ 5,462 1% $ 904,906 99% $ 910,368 Appendix details the allocation of the 2006 27,880 3 901,440 97 929,320 MMRS monies to the ADEM and to Total all years $33,342 2% $1,806,346 98% $1,839,688 each local jurisdiction for grant year 2005.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of the ADEM internal records, including budget worksheets and Excel spreadsheets, for grant years 2005 and 2006.
State of Arizona
page
28
Citizens Corps Program allocation process
The DHS requires that CCP monies be used to form and sustain a State Citizen Corps Council. In addition, the DHS requires that the state administering agency (i.e., ADEM) coordinate all citizen education, communication, training, and participation activities, and must be included on the State Citizen Corps Council. The Arizona State Citizen Corps Council (ACCC) is comprised of 3 executive positions (chair, vice-chair, and immediate past chair) and 22 other members. All members are appointed by the Governor and the chair and vice chair are elected by the Council members and serve a 1-year term. The ACCC is responsible for increasing public awareness, sharing information, promoting training, and encouraging partnerships to help Arizona better prepare for and respond to threats of terrorism, crime, public health issues, and disasters of all kinds. The CCP monies that remain with the State are used to support the administration of the CCP and the activities of the ACCC (e.g., public awareness programs). The DHS does not require that CCP monies be shared with local jurisdictions. However, the ACCC has elected to share a portion of the CCP award with local jurisdictions or local Citizen Corps Councils each year. For grant year 2005, the ACCC choose to distribute a small amount of money to three local Citizen Corps Councils to help them continue developing and enhancing their programs. For grant year 2006, the ACCC elected to allocate the CCP monies to the counties based on a population formula. Counties were awarded monies to deliver training, establish citizen emergency response teams, and establish new or maintain existing Citizen Corps Councils. Currently in Arizona, 34 local Citizen Corps Councils (12 for county governments, 19 for city Table 10: CCP Allocations and town governments, and 3 Between the State and Local Jurisdictions for tribal governments) have Grant Years 2003 through 2006 been established to involve (Unaudited) citizens in hometown security.
Program summary--The
CCP grant was not awarded Grant Year for individual projects; 2003 $ 87,835 25% $263,504 therefore, no information 2004 179,120 28 470,880 regarding detailed projects 2005 244,176 96 10,000 was available. Table 10 2006 197,920 53 173,725 Total all years $709,051 44% $918,109 summarizes the allocation of the CCP monies between the State and local jurisdictions Source: Auditor General staff analysis of the ADEM internal records, including spreadsheets, for grant years 2003 through 2006. for grant years 2003 through 2006. The attached Appendix details the allocation of the CCP monies to the State, local Citizen Corps Councils, and the counties for grant years 2003 through 2005.
CCP Allocations State Local Jurisdictions Amount Percent Amount Percent
75% 72 4 47 56%
Total
$ 351,339 650,000 254,176 371,645 $1,627,160
budget worksheets and Excel
Office of the Auditor General
page
29
Emergency Management Performance Grant allocation process
The DHS does not require the State to allocate EMPG monies to local jurisdictions. However, the ADEM has elected to allocate 33 percent of the grant award to the counties. The ADEM retains the remaining monies to support emergency management planning, assist the Arizona emergency response commission, and offer state-wide assistance for high-risk emergencies (e.g., fire preparedness). One of the ADEM's primary responsibilities is to administer the State's emergency management programs. The ADEM uses the following process to allocate monies to the counties.
County allocation--Monies are allocated to each county in a lump sum with 50
percent of the total being equally distributed among the 15 counties, 35 percent distributed based on a county's percentage of overall unincorporated population, and 15 percent distributed based on a county's percentage of overall incorporated population. The counties are then responsible for funding individual projects. The ADEM sends letters to the counties notifying them of their awards. county retains all documentation of the projects funded with the EMPG monies. As a result, detailed goals and objectives for each project were not available from the AOHS or the ADEM. Table 11 Table 11: EMPG Allocations summarizes the allocation of the Between the State and Local Jurisdictions EMPG monies between the State and Grant Years 2003 through 2006 the counties for grant years 2003 (Unaudited) through 2006. The attached Appendix details the allocation of the EMPG to EMPG Allocations the state programs and the counties State Local Jurisdictions for grant years 2003 through 2005. Total Grant Year Amount Percent Amount Percent
2003 2004 2005 2006 Total all years $2,040,414 2,194,460 2,158,825 2,230,189 $8,623,888 65% 67 67 67 67% $1,082,625 1,082,625 1,082,625 1,082,625 $4,330,500 35% 33 33 33 33% $ 3,123,039 3,277,085 3,241,450 3,312,814 $12,954,388
Program summary--Each
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of the ADEM internal records, including budget worksheets and Excel spreadsheets, for grant years 2003 through 2006.
State of Arizona
page
30
Figure 8: Arizona Homeland Security Grant Program
Local Jurisdiction and State Allocation Process Grant Year 2006
SHSP
Project-based allocations
LETPP
Local Jurisdiction Allocation Process
UASI
Project-based allocations
80% of grant monies
80% of grant monies
At least 80 percent of grant monies are allocated for local jurisdiction projects. Local jurisdictions submit project proposals to their RAC. The RACs evaluate project proposals and submit approved projects to the AOHS for final approval. The AOHS planners and staff review the projects recommended by the RACs and ensure they align with state and national strategies and comply with program requirements. Projects are submitted to the Director of Homeland Security for final approval.
At least 80 percent of grant monies are allocated for local jurisdiction projects within Arizona's designated urban area. Local jurisdictions submit project proposals to the UASI steering committee. The steering committee evaluates project proposals and submits approved projects to the UASI working group for final approval.
State Allocation Process
20% of grant monies 20% of grant monies
The remaining 20 percent of grant monies are allocated to the State. The AOHS and the ADEM retain a portion of state-allocated monies for planning, equipment, training, exercises, and management and administrative costs. Remaining monies are allocated to state agencies for homeland security projects. State agencies submit project proposals to the AOHS Assistant Director of Strategic Policy. Projects are reviewed to ensure they align with state and national strategies and comply with program requirements. Projects are submitted to the Director of Homeland Security for final approval.
The remaining 20 percent of grant monies are allocated to the State. The AOHS and the ADEM retain a portion of state-allocated monies for planning, training, exercises, and management and administrative costs. Remaining monies are allocated to state agencies for homeland security projects. State agencies submit project proposals to the AOHS. Projects are reviewed to ensure they align with state and national strategies and comply with program requirements. Projects are approved by the Director of Homeland Security.
Source: Auditor General staff summary of information provided by AOHS and ADEM staff.
Office of the Auditor General
page
31
Figure 8: (Concl'd)
MMRS
Lump-sum and project-based allocations
CCP
Lump-sum allocation
EMPG
Lump-sum allocation
Local Jurisdiction Allocation Process
97% of grant monies 47% of grant monies 33% of grant monies
The DHS specifies the award amount for each MMRS jurisdiction. The State may only retain monies with the approval of the MMRS steering committee. Ninety-seven percent of grant monies were allocated to the MMRS jurisdictions for grant year 2006.
The DHS does not require the State to allocate monies to local jurisdictions. However, for grant year 2006 the ACCC elected to allocate monies to the counties based on a population formula. The ACCC allowed counties to spend these monies to deliver trainings, establish citizen emergency response teams, and maintain existing or establish new Citizens Corp Councils.
The DHS does not require the State to allocate monies to local jurisdictions. However, for grant year 2006 the ADEM elected to allocate 33 percent of the grant award to the counties with 50 percent being equally distributed and 50 percent being distributed based on population. Counties used these monies to fund emergency management programs.
State Allocation Process
3% of grant monies 53% of grant monies 67% of grant monies
Local jurisdictions submit their project proposals to the MMRS steering committee for evaluation and approval. Three percent of grant monies were retained by the State for grant year 2006 for management and administrative costs.
The ADEM retains monies allocated to the State to support the administration of the CCP and the activities of the ACCC.
The ADEM retains the 67 percent of the monies allocated to the State for emergency management planning, to support the Arizona emergency response commission, and to offer state-wide assistance for high-risk emergencies.
State of Arizona
page
32
CHAPTER 4
Conclusions and recommendations on the statewide administration of the Homeland Security Grant Program
Auditors noted four matters in the administration of the Homeland Security Grant Program that merit attention. The first relates to the sufficiency of the records maintained by the AOHS and the ADEM for the homeland security grants. Auditors noted that the documentation maintained for individual projects was often incomplete. The AOHS and the ADEM should ensure that complete documentation is maintained for all projects awarded homeland security monies. The second matter relates to performing an adequate review of reimbursement requests submitted by state agencies and local jurisdictions. Auditors noted that the ADEM did not verify reimbursement requests received to the approved project files prior to payment. Reimbursement requests submitted by state agencies and local jurisdictions should be verified against the approved project prior to payment. The third matter relates to preparing reconciliations of expenditures between the State's accounting system and the accounting records maintained by the ADEM. Auditors noted discrepancies between the expenditures recorded in the State's accounting system and the expenditures recorded in the ADEM's internal records. Furthermore, ADEM is in the process of performing a complete reconciliation of the expenditure information contained in the systems, but has not yet completed the reconciliations. The ADEM should prepare timely reconciliations of expenditures, and investigate, resolve, and correct all differences noted. The fourth matter relates to the AOHS' and the ADEM's coordination of their administrative responsibilities. Instances were noted in which the AOHS and the ADEM did not share information on project changes and assumed that the other entity had maintained program documentation. The AOHS and the ADEM should better coordinate the administration of the homeland security grants.
Adequate documentation should be retained for projects
When compiling the information specified in the special audit request, auditors noted that project files maintained by the AOHS and the ADEM were incomplete.
Office of the Auditor General
page
33
Specifically, documentation regarding project descriptions, changes to project award amounts, and reallocation of project monies were not available for over a third of the projects examined. Further, auditors noted that documentation was not always maintained for transfers between jurisdictions and within jurisdictions. When a local jurisdiction wanted to make a transfer, either changing funding between projects or adding a new project, it contacted either the AOHS or the ADEM, usually by phone. However, these changes were not always documented by the AOHS or the ADEM. Even though documentation was not always maintained, the AOHS and the ADEM personnel were able to explain the reason for most of the missing or incomplete documentation, and could provide auditors with additional information. In addition, auditors noted the AOHS did not always maintain complete documentation to support the approval or rejection of projects proposed by state agencies and local jurisdictions. This is particularly important given that final approval of projects for some grant programs is the responsibility of the Director of Homeland Security. Maintaining sufficient documentation to demonstrate accountability for the homeland security grant monies received from the DHS is essential to grants administration. A lack of sufficient documentation could result in the DHS or auditors questioning monies allocated to state agency and local jurisdiction projects or individual costs incurred for the homeland security grants and result in the AOHS and the ADEM having to repay the DHS for these questioned costs. The AOHS and the ADEM should maintain complete documentation for all homeland security grants projects to help ensure accountability over the State's homeland security grants.
Reimbursement requests should be verified to the approved project
Auditors noted that the ADEM did not verify reimbursement requests submitted by state agencies and local jurisdictions to the approved project prior to payment. Performing such a verification is an effective means of ensuring that grant monies are only expended for goods and services authorized in the approved project. It is particularly important given the large number of individual projects that are awarded funding. The ADEM did ensure all expenditures were eligible within the applicable grant guidelines and that the reimbursement requests fit within the scope of the entity's operations. However, the ADEM should verify reimbursement requests to the approved project file in order to properly monitor monies expended by state agencies and local jurisdictions for homeland security projects. The comparison should focus on the approved purpose of the project and on the budgeted expenditures for the project. Expenditures incurred by state agencies and local jurisdictions that are not authorized in the project award should not be reimbursed.
State of Arizona
page
34
Grant accounting records should be reconciled
When evaluating the controls established to administer the homeland security grants, auditors noted that the ADEM had not completed reconciliations of expenditure information recorded in the State's financial accounting system (AFIS) to individual project expenditures recorded in the ADEM's internal records. As a result, auditors noted discrepancies in the expenditure amounts recorded. The ADEM used AFIS to process reimbursements made to state agencies and local jurisdictions for homeland security grants. AFIS records reimbursements by expenditure type (e.g., grants to local governments) and not by entity or individual grant project. The ADEM recorded detailed accounting information for each grant project using electronic spreadsheets. These spreadsheets included the state agency or local jurisdiction, the project award amount, expenditure reimbursements, and the remaining project budget. Reconciling the expenditure information in the AFIS to the expenditure information contained in the spreadsheets is necessary to help ensure the spreadsheets accurately reflect all reimbursements. These spreadsheets are the primary tool used by the ADEM to ensure individual grant projects remain within budget. The ADEM has begun the process of reconciling the AFIS to their internal records for grant years 2003 through 2005. However, to properly control the reimbursement of homeland security grant monies, it should prepare monthly reconciliations, investigate and resolve discrepancies, and make all necessary corrections.
Coordination between the AOHS and the ADEM should be improved
While conducting the special audit, auditors noted that the AOHS and the ADEM did not always coordinate their activities. For example, the AOHS did not always provide the ADEM with project descriptions and updated project information, and the ADEM did not always notify the AOHS of project revisions. Furthermore, instances were noted when both the AOHS and the ADEM believed the other had maintained program documentation, when neither entity had maintained the appropriate documentation. The AOHS and the ADEM should better coordinate the administration of the homeland security grants to help ensure each entity has the information necessary to comply with applicable federal rules and regulations. Auditors also noted that Senate Bill 1264, approved during the 47th Legislature, 2nd session, created the Arizona Department of Homeland Security. The AOHS staff indicated that preliminary plans for the new department included a Finance and Administration Division with a tentative staff of seven employees. This may help to alleviate some of the coordination problems the AOHS and the ADEM have experienced.
Office of the Auditor General
page
35
Previous deficiencies noted
In addition to the matters noted above, auditors noted deficiencies with the administration of the homeland security grants while performing the 2005 single audit work for the State of Arizona. These deficiencies involved inadequate monitoring of subrecipients (i.e., local jurisdictions), failure to obligate monies to local jurisdictions within the allotted time frame set by the federal government, a lack of policies and procedures in place to limit federal cash on hand, not obtaining memorandums of understanding from local jurisdictions when making purchases on their behalf, and not ensuring local jurisdictions were not excluded by the federal government from participating in federal programs. These deficiencies are included in the State of Arizona's June 30, 2005, Single Audit Reporting Package and the Department of Emergency and Military Affairs June 30, 2005, Management Letter. These reports are available on the Arizona Office of the Auditor General's Web site at www.azauditor.gov.
Recommendations
1. The AOHS and the ADEM should maintain complete documentation for all grant projects to help ensure accountability for the State's homeland security grant monies. The ADEM should verify reimbursement requests submitted by state agencies and local jurisdictions to project files to help ensure homeland security monies are expended only for authorized purposes. The ADEM should prepare written monthly reconciliations of expenditures recorded on the State's accounting system to the detailed project spreadsheets to help ensure the accuracy of the expenditure information by project. The AOHS and the ADEM should better coordinate the administration of the homeland security grants to help ensure compliance with federal rules and regulations.
2.
3.
4.
State of Arizona
page
36
APPENDIX
Detailed project analysis
This appendix presents the individual state agency and local jurisdiction projects funded by Arizona's Homeland Security Grant Program. The projects are broken out into six sections: one section for state agencies and five sections for each of the regions (Central, East, North, South, and West). There is Homeland Security a one-page summary sheet for each section. For state agencies, the Grant Program Acronyms summary sheet presents the state agencies that received program monies for grant years 2003 through 2005 and the total amounts ADEM--Arizona Division of Emergency state agencies received per program. For each of the regions, the Management summary sheet presents the amounts received by program from grant years 2003 through 2005 and a breakout of amounts received AOHS--Arizona Governor's Office of by jurisdiction type (i.e., county, city/town, fire district, or Indian Homeland Security community). In addition to the summary sheet, each section has a table that contains the individual projects funded by homeland Federal Programs: security monies. The tables include the state agency or local CCP--Citizen Corps Program jurisdiction, federal grant program that funded the project, grant year, EMPG--Emergency Management Performance Grants project name, project description (purpose), and the budgeted LETPP--Law Enforcement Terrorism expenditure amount. Auditors obtained the information for this Prevention Program Appendix from program budget worksheets and project proposal MMRS--Metropolitan Medical Response sheets for grant years 2003 through 2005 from the AOHS and the System ADEM. As noted previously, auditors were unable to obtain specific SHSP--State Homeland Security Program goals and objectives (purpose) of each homeland security project UASI--Urban Areas Security Initiative due to the manner in which some grant programs were allocated to the local jurisdictions and deficiencies in the records maintained for state agency projects. For these projects, auditors presented the information that was available from the AOHS and the ADEM. In addition, this Appendix does not present information for grant year 2006, as the State did not receive and allocate all grant awards from the DHS in time for inclusion in this report.
Office of the Auditor General
page
a-1
Figure 9: Map of Arizona Federal Homeland Security Grant Program Regions
and Arizona Counties
Coconino Mohave
Apache
NORTH
Navajo
WEST
Yavapai La Paz
CENTRAL
EAST
Pinal Graham Pima
Yuma
SOUTH
Santa Cruz Cochise
State of Arizona
page
a-2
Greenlee
Maricopa
Gila
Arizona Homeland Security Grant Monies
State Agencies
Budget Allocations by Grant Year:
State Agency
Arizona State University Army National Guard Commission of Indian Affairs Criminal Justice Commission Department of Administration Department of Agriculture Department of Corrections Department of Economic Security Department of Environmental Quality Department of Liquor Licenses and Control Department of Public Safety Department of Transportation Division of Emergency Management Northern Arizona University Office of Homeland Security Radiation Regulatory Agency University of Arizona Total $
2003
100,000 621,720 200,000 80,000 242,000 100,000 694,220 1,156,716 656,287 15,338,649 100,000 550,000 397,470 12,280 $20,249,342
2004
$ $ 914,625 300,000 400,000 4,955,434 840,000 7,328,249 1,824,948 250,000 $16,813,256
2005
13,000 353,976 120,000 717,000 476,520 206,000 374,097 1,412,442 200,000 6,797,831 1,351,338 $12,022,204
Grand Total
100,000 621,720 13,000 553,976 200,000 1,873,625 400,000 476,520 1,300,220 374,097 7,524,592 1,696,287 29,464,729 100,000 3,726,286 647,470 12,280 $49,084,802 $
Budget Allocation by Grant Program Grant Years 2003 through 2005
SHSP $29,161,578 MMRS $5,462
Program
SHSP1 LETPP1 UASI MMRS CCP EMPG Total
1
2003
$15,914,400 2,206,693 87,835 2,040,414 $20,249,342
Grant Year 2004
$ 7,442,832 4,823,200 2,173,6441 179,120 2,194,460 $16,813,256
2005
$ 5,804,346 1,810,102 1,999,293 5,462 244,176 2,158,825 $12,022,204
LETPP $6,633,302 EMPG $6,393,699
CCP $511,131 UASI $6,379,630
Amounts include local jurisdiction monies retained by the State to use for equipment purchases, training, and exercises, and critical infrastructure protection that will directly support regions and local jurisdictions. Such amounts are $8,688,000, $1,824,798, and $1,800,000 for the SHSP for grant years 2003 through 2005, respectively; $2,965,400 and $353,976 for the LETPP for grant years 2004 and 2005; and $252,000 for the UASI for grant year 2004.
Total: $49,084,802
Office of the Auditor General
page
a-3
Arizona Homeland Security Grant Monies
Central Region
Regional Data
Population Census and Estimate 2005 2000 (Estimate) Census
3,635,528 3,072,149
County
Maricopa
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Web site at www.census.gov. Accessed September 25, 2006.
Budget Allocation by Grant Program Grant Years 2003 through 2005
Grant Year 2004
$ 7,064,986 1,328,000 9,954,579 126,198 274,961 $18,748,724
Program
SHSP LETPP UASI MMRS CCP EMPG Total
2003
$ 4,964,169 8,826,774 70,625 274,961 $14,136,529
2005
$ 4,558,283 2,938,270 7,997,170 678,679 274,961 $16,447,363
UASI $26,778,523
CCP $196,823 MMRS $678,679 EMPG $824,883 LETPP $4,266,270
SHSP $16,587,438
Total: $49,332,616
Budget Allocation by Jurisdiction Type Grant Years 2003 through 2005
Grant Year Jurisdiction Type
County City/town Indian tribe Unallocated monies Total
Programs Awarded through the AOHS and the ADEM by Grant Year
Program SHSPogram Pr 2003 2003
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
2004 2004
2005 2005
2003
$ 4,835,755 9,300,774 $14,136,529
2004
$ 2,109,661 16,589,748 48,762 553 $18,748,724
2005
$ 3,375,580 12,895,433 175,000 1,350 $16,447,363
LETPP SHSP UASI LETPP MMRS UASI CCP MMRS EMPG CCP
N/A EMPG Shaded areas indicate program awards were granted in that year. Shaded areas indicate program awards were granted in that year.
State of Arizona
page
a-4
Arizona Homeland Security Grant Monies
East Region
Regional Data
Population Census and Estimate 2005 2000 (Estimate) Census
51,663 33,073 7,521 229,549 321,806 51,335 33,489 8,547 179,727 273,098
County
Gila Graham Greenlee Pinal Total
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Web site at www.census.gov. Accessed September 25, 2006.
Budget Allocation by Grant Program Grant Years 2003 through 2005
Grant Year 2004
$2,389,152 600,000 77,553 198,984 $3,265,689
Program
SHSP LETPP CCP EMPG Total
2003
$4,398,668 43,397 198,984 $4,641,049
2005
$1,552,464 198,653 198,984 $1,950,101
SHSP $8,340,284
CCP $120,950 EMPG $596,952 LETPP $798,653
Total: $9,856,839
Budget Allocation by Jurisdiction Type Grant Years 2003 through 2005
Grant Year Jurisdiction Type
County City/town Fire district Indian tribe Total
Programs Awarded through the AOHS and the ADEM by Grant Year
Program 2003
N/A N/A N/A
2004
2005
2003
$4,641,049
2004
$2,950,384 315,305 $3,265,689
2005
$1,148,484 530,349 167,300 103,968 $1,950,101
SHSP LETPP UASI MMRS CCP EMPG
N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A
$4,641,049
Shaded areas indicate program awards were granted in that year.
Office of the Auditor General
page
a-5
Arizona Homeland Security Grant Monies
North Region
Regional Data
Population Census and Estimate 2005 2000 (Estimate) Census
69,343 123,866 108,432 301,641 69,423 116,320 97,470 283,213
County
Apache Coconino Navajo Total
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Web site at www.census.gov. Accessed September 25, 2006.
Budget Allocation by Grant Program Grant Years 2003 through 2005
Grant Year 2004
$2,784,567 710,088 68,760 154,935 $3,718,350
Program
SHSP LETPP CCP EMPG Total
2003
$2,863,703 38,528 154,935 $3,057,166
2005
$2,760,956 401,937 5,000 154,935 $3,322,828
SHSP $8,409,226
CCP $112,288 EMPG $464,805
Total: $10,098,344
LETPP $1,112,025
Budget Allocation by Jurisdiction Type Grant Years 2003 through 2005
Grant Year Jurisdiction Type
County City/town Fire district Indian tribe Other Total
Programs Awarded through the AOHS and the ADEM by Grant Year
Program 2003
N/A N/A N/A
2004
2005
2003
$3,057,166
2004
$1,634,838 865,455 147,267 1,055,558 15,232 $3,718,350
2005
$ 503,435 2,171,072 115,933 422,388 110,000 $3,322,828
SHSP LETPP UASI MMRS CCP EMPG
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
$3,057,166
Shaded areas indicate program awards were granted in that year.
State of Arizona
page
a-6
Arizona Homeland Security Grant Monies
South Region
Regional Data
Population Census and Estimate 2005 2000 (Estimate) Census
126,106 924,786 42,009 181,277 1,274,178 117,755 843,746 38,381 160,026 1,159,908
County
Cochise Pima Santa Cruz Yuma Total
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Web site at www.census.gov. Accessed September 25, 2006.
Budget Allocation by Grant Program Grant Years 2003 through 2005
Grant Year 2004
$ 8,868,979 1,597,612 133,020 290,207 $10,889,818
Program
SHSP LETPP MMRS CCP EMPG Total
2003
$7,250,805 74,433 290,207 $7,615,445
2005
$3,101,113 1,708,601 226,227 5,000 290,207 $5,331,148
SHSP $19,220,897
CCP $212,453 MMRS $226,227 EMPG $870,621 LETPP $3,306,213
Total: $23,836,411
Budget Allocation by Jurisdiction Type Grant Years 2003 through 2005
Grant Year Jurisdiction Type
County City/town Fire district Indian tribe Other Total
Programs Awarded through the AOHS and the ADEM by Grant Year
Program 2003
N/A N/A N/A
2004
2005
2003
$7,415,445 200,000
2004
$ 4,284,452 4,051,713 124,020 930,300 1,499,333 $10,889,818
2005
$1,826,859 2,986,796 139,500 375,493 2,500 $5,331,148
SHSP LETPP UASI MMRS CCP EMPG
N/A N/A
N/A
$7,615,445
Shaded areas indicate program awards were granted in that year.
Office of the Auditor General
page
a-7
Arizona Homeland Security Grant Monies
West Region
Regional Data
Population Census and Estimate 2005 2000 (Estimate) Census
20,238 187,200 198,701 406,139 19,715 155,032 167,517 342,264
County
La Paz Mohave Yavapai Total
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Web site at www.census.gov. Accessed September 25, 2006.
Budget Allocation by Grant Program Grant Years 2003 through 2005
Grant Year 2004
$2,753,484 230,100 65,349 163,538 $3,212,471
Program
SHSP LETPP CCP EMPG Total
2003
$3,225,255 36,521 163,538 $3,425,314
2005
$2,244,569 223,067 163,538 $2,631,174
SHSP $8,223,308
CCP $101,870 EMPG $490,614 LETPP $453,167
Total: $9,268,959
Budget Allocation by Jurisdiction Type Grant Years 2003 through 2005
Grant Year Jurisdiction Type
County City/town Fire district Indian tribe Other Total
Programs Awarded through the AOHS and the ADEM by Grant Year
Program 2003
N/A N/A N/A
2004
2005
2003
$3,425,314
2004
$2,817,517 305,100 89,854 $3,212,471
2005
$1,152,728 959,704 246,751 68,252 203,739 $2,631,174
SHSP LETPP UASI MMRS CCP EMPG
N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A
$3,425,314
Shaded areas indicate program awards were granted in that year.
State of Arizona
page
a-8
Table 12: Homeland Security Monies
By Agency and Project Grant Years 2003 through 2005 (Unaudited)
Project State Agency
Arizona State University
Federal Program
SHSP
Grant Year
2003
Name
Enhancing security at critical infrastructures
Agency Reported Purpose
Purchase an integrated law enforcement interoperable communications system known as Cody 6. This system is designed to address unique file-linking structures needed to easily enter and retrieve vital law enforcement information. Other equipment requested includes: wireless laptop computers for patrol cars, wireless data terminals for patrol motorcycles, a server, personal computer system, and code division multiple access service for data transmission. (1) Communications equipment, including satellite phones; (2) training (i.e., chemical and biological survey course and biohazard sampling and detection course); (3) manpower; (4) chemical bio reservoir (i.e., handheld camera unit and portable water systems); and (5) contingency planning and exercises. The Arizona Indian town hall is a 2-1/2 day forum that has proven effective in instituting legislative and policy changes that benefit Arizona tribal communities. With the help of other public institutions and tribal entities, Arizona Commission of Indian Affairs performs research and prepares background documentation for the Indian town hall. These background documents are mailed out to participants in advance of the town hall so they can educate themselves on the topic and prepare themselves for discussions of specific issues. During the Indian town hall, panels of 20-25 people discuss specific issues related to the major topic and develop consensus on recommendations from which a draft report is produced. On the final day, all participants meet in a plenary session where a final consensus is reached and a final report is drafted. This report is then used by interested community members, legislators, and other leaders as the basis to seek changes in Arizona state law, administrative rules and regulatory rules, or policies with the overall goal of more effective intergovernmental interaction and enhanced services to communities throughout the State. The Arizona Indian town hall is similar to the process used by the Arizona town hall, but has been slightly altered to accommodate the various cultures of Indian communities. The Indian town hall process has many advantages from a policy standpoint. First, the forum attracts a cross section of community members, agency officials, and policy makers. Second, the Indian town hall process encourages discussion from all participants, which results in a multifaceted discussion of issues that often are overlooked at a conference. Finally, the town hall format is geared toward consensus; thus, the recommendations coming out of the Indian town hall are realistic and achievable. Develop a state-wide integrated justice information system to help ensure more accurate offender information.
Budget
$ 100,000
Army National Guard Commission of Indian Affairs
SHSP
2003
Enhanced security
621,720
SHSP
2005
25th annual Indian town hall
13,000
Office of the Auditor General
Criminal Justice Commission
LETPP
2005
Data integration program
353,976
page
a-9
page
State of Arizona
a-10
Table 12: State Agencies (Cont'd)
Project State Agency
Criminal Justice Commission (Concl'd) Department of Administration
Federal Program
SHSP SHSP
Grant Year
2003 2003
Name
Criminal records access Interoperable communications equipment
Agency Reported Purpose
Improve the capabilities of criminal justice agencies around the State for access to criminal justice and criminal history records. Replace handheld radios with a 900 MHZ system and base for the Capitol Police. Pay overtime costs of officers and provide security for the Capitol Mall and Tucson Complex. Additional equipment includes portable defibrillators, portable magnetometers, portable signage for personnel directions for access to buildings, portable electric vehicle for service assistants and runners at the Arizona Department of Administration Emergency Operations Center, and portable radio battery analyzer for Kenwood radio batteries. Bomb detection canine will be used by the Capitol Police to sweep state property for explosive devices prior to and during functions involving the Governor's Office, state Legislature, visiting dignitaries, and other high-profile special events. It would also be the primary response to any and all bomb threats, suspicious package or article calls, and suspicious mail calls. Additional funding requests include chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive operational search and rescue equipment (search and rescue vests, binoculars, and cart); information technology such as computer hardware and handheld computers for emergency response applications; interoperability of communications project such as radios and bridging and patching equipment; and chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive response and terrorist incident prevention equipment such as hardware, software, and Internet-based systems. Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. The Department of Agriculture food production staff will focus on outreach to those in production agriculture to the vulnerabilities and threats to the critical infrastructure of agriculture in Arizona as they relate to the following priorities: tribal nations, international border, international ports of entry, livestock auctions, confined animal feeding operations, processing (wholesale), and warehousing and delivery of fresh produce, both domestic and imported. Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. Purchase equipment for veterinary toxicology testing to be performed at the Department of Agriculture.
Budget
$ 200,000 80,000
UASI
2005
Personnel protection and communications
120,000
Department of Agriculture
SHSP SHSP
2004 2005 Biosecurity of food production and food delivery systems
248,981 150,000
UASI UASI UASI
2003 2004 2005
Upgrade agriculture lab equipment and training
242,000 665,644 567,000
Table 12: State Agencies (Cont'd)
Project State Agency
Department of Corrections
Federal Program
SHSP
Grant Year
2003
Name
First responder preparedness and enhancement of security at critical infrastructure facilities Critical infrastructure metal detection project Enhance interoperable communications Explosive detection dog National incident management system compliance plan review Cyber security information technology awareness program
Agency Reported Purpose
(1) Security equipment for correctional buildings; (2) interoperable communications equipment (i.e., multifrequency portable radios and firewall and network monitoring equipment); (3) medical equipment (i.e., automatic external defibrillators, refrigerators for medical supplies, and emergency power system); (4) training and exercises (i.e., video camera system for development of staff training videos and firearms training system). Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. This program's objectives are to (1) implement the information technology sharing and analysis center's mission critical security enhancements recommendations; (2) implement the Government Information Technology Agency's technology infrastructure standards assessments recommendations; and (3) address the Department of Economic Security's (DES) specific standards compliance gaps. The scope of work will (1) educate agency end users on their responsibility and role in state-wide information technology security; (2) collect data and lessons learned required to make a business case for the development of a statewide information technology security awareness program with multiple campaigns per year; and (3) assist DES with improving overall standards compliance. Implement connectivity between the data centers and state-wide communications network to facilitate redundant infrastructure and disaster recovery using shared fiber resources. This program's objectives are to (1) implement the information technology sharing and analysis center's mission critical security enhancements recommendations; (2) implement the Government Information Technology Agency's technology infrastructure standards assessments recommendations; and (3) address the Department of Economic Security's (DES) specific standards compliance gaps. The scope of work will (1) educate agency end users on their responsibility and role in state-wide information technology security; (2) collect data and lessons learned required to make a business case for the development of a statewide information technology security awareness program with multiple campaigns per year; and (3) assist DES with improving overall standards compliance.
Budget
$ 100,000
SHSP SHSP SHSP SHSP Department of Economic Security SHSP
2004 2004 2004 2004 2005
6,013 235,110 5,443 53,434 48,574
UASI UASI
Office of the Auditor General
2005 2005
Critical data and communications risk mitigation Cyber security information technology awareness program
383,000 44,946
page
a-11
page
State of Arizona
a-12
Table 12: State Agencies (Cont'd)
Project State Agency
Department of Environmental Quality
Federal Program
SHSP
Grant Year
2003
Name
First responder preparedness and enhanced security of critical infrastructure
Agency Reported Purpose
Personal protection equipment (i.e., chemical-resistant boots, flame-resistant coveralls, air-purifying respirators, flame-resistant gloves), communications and information systems (cellular phones, multichannel radios, portable global positioning systems), and detection equipment (i.e., pesticide screening kits, inflatable portable decontamination shower, and hazardous materials chemical agents detection systems). Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. The purpose of this project is to purchase additional emergency response-related equipment, including an infrared spectrometer for deployment in the southern region for use in identifying suspicious materials and purchase items needed to maintain and support emergency response-related equipment. Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. Provide additional physical security for the Department of Environmental Quality headquarters facility where the Department's emergency response equipment and information used to manage and monitor hazardous waste facilities and public drinking water providers are stored and managed. Install emergency generators needed to power the emergency response operations center and the agency's information technology servers and install additional security cameras around facility grounds. Request funding to equip all of the agency's unmarked police vehicles with up-to-date, two-way mobile radios. Establish a multiple agency, public, and private task force that would aggressively investigate and prosecute suspects involved in creating, using, and selling fake identification cards and report to public and private service agencies results and findings of the task force for refinement of processes known to utilize identification for access. Establish a multiple agency, public, and private task force that would aggressively investigate and prosecute suspects involved in creating, using, and selling fake identification cards and report to public and private service agencies results and findings of the task force for refinement of processes known to utilize identification for access. The personal equipment for this task force includes a digital camera, video recorder, digital tape recorder, Blackberry telephone, ballistic protective vest, document scanner, identification card reader, and magnifying device.
Budget
$ 500,000
SHSP SHSP
2004 2005
Emergency response operations project
200,000 110,000
UASI UASI UASI
2003 2004 2005
Rapid response team Facility enhancement project
194,220 200,000 96,000
Department of Liquor Licenses and Control
SHSP UASI
2005 2005
Communications radios Identification fraud task force planner salary and employee-related expenditures and personal equipment Personal equipment
205,750 161,847
UASI
2005
6,500
Table 12: State Agencies (Cont'd)
Project State Agency
Department of Public Safety
Federal Program
LETPP
Grant Year
2004
Name
Arizona Counterterrorism Information Center--Early Warning Center Governor's protective detail Planning--operation stonegarden Terrorism liaison officer and chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive response program Prevention and detection capabilities Enhancing the ability to detect and prevent future acts of terrorism
Agency Reported Purpose
The State will establish a 24 hours-a-day, 7 days-a-week intelligence and information analysis center that will serve as a central hub to facilitate the collection, analysis, and dissemination of crime- and terrorism-related information. Upgrade security system for the 8th and 9th floors at the Arizona State Capitol. Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. The award amount will be allocated to achieve these objectives: (1) assess vulnerability of and harden critical infrastructure, (2) establish and enhance critical infrastructure, and (3) establish and enhance regional response. The breakout of the award will include the following areas: planning, equipment, training, exercises, and target hardening. Part of the monies allocated to this program will be used to purchase equipment for 65 new terrorism liaison officers. Equipment will include an Intel suite of laptop computers and software and a suite including digital cameras, global positioning system, and range finders. Purchase specialty vehicles, equipment, and contract analysis personnel to increase the prevention and detection of hazardous materials and explosives (1) Arizona antiterrorist and crime information center--The State will establish a 24 hours-a-day, 7 days-a-week intelligence and information analysis center that will serve as a central hub to facilitate the collection, analysis, and dissemination of crime and terrorism-related information. (2) First responder equipment. (3) Training--Hazardous materials and weapons of mass destruction technician. (4) Criminal justice communications network upgrade--The State of Arizona will take steps to establish a state-wide integrated justice system that links the information systems used by federal, state, local, and tribal criminal justice entities in such a way as to support the identification of emerging terrorism-related trends. Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. Personal protective equipment, detection equipment, response equipment, and safe haven construction for at-risk vehicles at border ports. Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM.
Budget
$1,777,816
LETPP LETPP LETPP
2004 2004 2004
56,994 22,990 2,965,400
LETPP SHSP
2005 2003
1,412,442 700,000
Department of Transportation
SHSP UASI SHSP SHSP SHSP
2004 2003 2003 2004 2004
Responder preparedness and mitigation Automatic vehicle location devices Continuity of operations plan
132,234 456,716 500,000 13,437 17,781
Office of the Auditor General
page
a-13
page
State of Arizona
a-14
Table 12: State Agencies (Cont'd)
Project State Agency
Department of Transportation (Concl'd)
Federal Program
SHSP SHSP SHSP SHSP UASI UASI UASI UASI UASI
Grant Year
2004 2004 2004 2004 2003 2004 2004 2004 2005
Name
Enhance cyber security Interoperable communications Motor vehicle division security video equipment Vulnerability assessment Continuity of operations plan Enhance cyber security Interoperability communications Continuity of operations, business continuity, disaster recovery planning
Agency Reported Purpose
Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. Refine and improve state plans and procedures to prevent terrorist attacks, reduce vulnerability to terrorism and all other critical hazards, and minimize the damage and enhance the recovery from attacks and other critical hazards. Continue to pay full-time staff and consultants to refine and improve plans. Send two attendees to participate in the Disaster Recovery Journal conference for planning training. Continue annual maintenance contract on living disaster recovery planning software used for the Department's plans. Protect 5,000 computers; 300 servers; 200 routers and switches for millions of critical motor vehicle, title and registration, digital driver license, aircraft registration, and state highway traffic control records. Decrease vulnerability from breach and sabotage by installing intrusion detection systems to monitor intrusions, encryption systems for sensitive data, scanning and penetration tools to assess vulnerability, and security hardware. Provide training on new security tools such as cyber security and risk mitigation plans and risk and vulnerability assessments. Monies retained by ADEM to support personal services, employee-related expenditures, and indirect costs.
Budget
$ 154,179 282,926 126,935 4,742 156,287 202,390 31,110 6,500 100,000
UASI
2005
Cyber security enhancement
100,000
Division of Emergency Management
CCP
2003
63,790
Table 12: State Agencies (Cont'd)
Project State Agency
Division of Emergency Management (Cont'd)
Federal Program
CCP
Grant Year
2003
Name
Agency Reported Purpose
Monies retained by ADEM for their preparedness section to help them in preparing state agencies and local emergency management organizations to respond to, recover from, and mitigate against disasters through planning, training, and exercise activities. Monies retained by ADEM to support administrative costs. Monies retained by ADEM to support personal services and employee-related expenditures. Monies provided to support the Arizona State Citizen Corps Council to increase public awareness, share information, promote training, and encourage partnerships among citizens. The State Citizen Corps Council outreach campaign will be an ongoing effort to educate the public, regional advisory councils, and administrative and elected officials about the value of Citizen Corps and emergency preparedness. Funding will support the development of training materials, State Citizen Corps Council members' travel, and multimedia public service announcements. Host a series of trainings on NIMS for volunteers of Citizen Corps and its affiliated programs. Trainings will be held in each of the five homeland security regions. Monies retained by ADEM for personal services and employee-related expenditures. Monies provided to support the Arizona State Citizen Corps Council to increase public awareness, share information, promote training, and encourage partnerships among citizens. Monies retained by ADEM to support training programs. Monies provided to support the Arizona Emergency Response Commission to aid in planning, release and incident reporting, data management guidance for inventory reporting, public disclosure of information for hazardous chemicals in Arizona, and development of training and outreach programs. Develop a Web-based hazardous materials inventory reporting system. Commercial facilities that produce, sell, and store hazardous materials must annually report their inventory. This system helps both in the submission of these reports and in processing information. Monies provided to the Arizona Fire Academy to conduct prewildfire season response training for fire service personnel throughout the State. Monies retained at ADEM for indirect costs. $
Budget
24,045
CCP CCP CCP CCP
2004 2004 2004 2005 Citizen Corps Council outreach campaign
48,105 63,790 67,225 55,879
CCP CCP CCP CCP EMPG
2005 2005 2005 2005 2003
National incident management system (NIMS) training
5,000 86,447 71,850 25,000 21,000
EMPG
Office of the Auditor General
2003
Emergency response commission Tier II project
25,000
EMPG EMPG
2003 2003
15,000 217,134
page
a-15
page
State of Arizona
a-16
Table 12: State Agencies (Cont'd)
Project State Agency
Division of Emergency Management (Cont'd)
Federal Program
EMPG
Grant Year
2003
Name
Agency Reported Purpose
Monies retained by ADEM to support the logistics section. The logistics section consolidates the budget, finance, logistics, administration, telecommunications, and information technology/management functions for the division. Monies retained by ADEM for contingent events. Monies provided to support the Governor's Office. Monies retained by ADEM to support the operations section. The operations section creates plans to prevent, mitigate, respond, and recover from natural, technological, and terrorist events. Monies retained by ADEM for personal services and employee-related expenditures. Monies retained by ADEM for their preparedness section to help them in preparing state agencies and local emergency management organizations to respond to, recover from, and mitigate against disasters through planning, training, and exercise activities. Monies retained by ADEM to support training costs. Monies retained by ADEM for contingent events. Monies provided to support the Arizona Emergency Response Commission to aid in planning, release and incident reporting, data management guidance for inventory reporting, public disclosure of information for hazardous chemicals in Arizona, and development of training and outreach programs. Monies provided to the Arizona Fire Academy to conduct prewildfire season response training for fire service personnel throughout the State. Monies provided to the Forest Health Council for community outreach for wildfire prevention. Monies retained by ADEM for indirect costs. Monies retained by ADEM to support the logistics section. The logistics section consolidates the budget, finance, logistics, administration, telecommunications, and information technology/management functions for the division. Monies retained by ADEM to support the operations section. The operations section creates plans to prevent, mitigate, respond, and recover from natural, technological, and terrorist events. Monies retained by ADEM for personal services and employee-related expenditures. Monies retained by ADEM for their preparedness section to help them in preparing state agencies and local emergency management organizations to respond to, recover from, and mitigate against disasters through planning, training, and exercise activities. $
Budget
58,000
EMPG EMPG EMPG EMPG EMPG EMPG EMPG EMPG
2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2004 2004
368,778 75,000 50,000 1,113,504 51,998 45,000 342,324 17,983
EMPG EMPG EMPG EMPG EMPG
2004 2004 2004 2004 2004
15,000 15,000 315,891 32,000 27,000
EMPG EMPG
2004 2004
1,369,262 40,000
Table 12: State Agencies (Cont'd)
Project State Agency
Division of Eme

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution.

Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records--Law and Research Library.

Full Text

A REPORT
ARIZONA LEGISLATURE
TO THE
Financial Audit Division Special Financial Audit
Arizona's Homeland Security Grant Program
OCTOBER ? 2006
Debra K. Davenport Auditor General
The Auditor General is appointed by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, a bipartisan committee composed of five senators and five representatives. Her mission is to provide independent and impartial information and specific recommendations to improve the operations of state and local government entities. To this end, she provides financial audits and accounting services to the State and political subdivisions, investigates possible misuse of public monies, and conducts performance audits of school districts, state agencies, and the programs they administer.
The Joint Legislative Audit Committee
Representative Laura Knaperek, Chair Representative Tom Boone Representative Ted Downing Representative Pete Rios Representative Steve Yarbrough Representative Jim Weiers (ex-officio) Senator Robert Blendu, Vice Chair Senator Ed Ableser Senator Carolyn Allen Senator John Huppenthal Senator Richard Miranda Senator Ken Bennett (ex-officio)
Audit Staff
Dennis Mattheisen, Director Jay Zsorey, Manager and Contact Person Tara Erickson, Senior Natasha Komo Brandi Melancon Josh Snyder
Copies of the Auditor General's reports are free. You may request them by contacting us at:
Office of the Auditor General
2910 N. 44th Street, Suite 410 ? Phoenix, AZ 85018 ? (602) 553-0333
Additionally, many of our reports can be found in electronic format at:
www.azauditor.gov
STATE OF ARIZONA
DEBRA K. DAVENPORT, CPA AUDITOR GENERAL
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
WILLIAM THOMSON DEPUTY AUDITOR GENERAL
October 2, 2006
Members of the Arizona Legislature The Honorable Janet Napolitano, Governor Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Special Financial Audit of Arizona's Homeland Security Grant Program. This report is in response to a May 22, 2006, resolution of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The special financial audit was conducted under the authority vested in the Auditor General by Arizona Revised Statutes ?41-1279.03. Arizona's Homeland Security Grant Program is a federal program comprising the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, the Urban Areas Security Initiative Program, the Metropolitan Medical Response System Program, the Citizens Corps Program, and the Emergency Management Performance Grants. Collectively, these grant programs provide money to the State to prevent, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism. This report provides an overview of the goals and objectives of each program and the amount of monies awarded to and expended by the State and local jurisdictions for each program. It also includes information on the processes used by the State to administer the programs and our conclusions and recommendations concerning these processes. My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clarify items in the report. This report will be released to the public on October 3, 2006. Sincerely,
Debbie Davenport Auditor General
2910 NORTH 44
th
STREET ? SUITE 410 ? PHOENIX, ARIZONA
85018 ? (602) 553-0333 ? FAX (602) 553-0051
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction & Background Chapter 1: Administration of Arizona's Homeland
Security Grant Program
Homeland Security Director's responsibilities Arizona Office of Homeland Security responsibilities Division of Emergency Management responsibilities Program costs
1 9 9 10 10 10
Chapter 2: Characteristics of the Homeland Security
Grant Program
Arizona's Homeland Security Grant Program Program goals and objectives
13 13 15 21 21 22 22 27 28 29 30
continued
Chapter 3: Homeland Security grant allocation process
U.S. Department of Homeland Security allocation requirements Arizona's allocation processes State Homeland Security Program and Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program allocation process Urban Areas Security Initiative allocation process Metropolitan Medical Response System allocation process Citizens Corps Program allocation process Emergency Management Performance Grant allocation process
Office of the Auditor General
page
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 4: Conclusions and recommendations on the
state-wide administration of the Homeland Security Grant Program
Adequate documentation should be retained for projects Reimbursement requests should be verified to the approved project Grant accounting records should be reconciled Coordination between the AOHS and the ADEM should be improved Previous deficiencies noted Recommendations
33 33 34 33 35 36 36 a-1 a-3 a-4 a-5 a-6 a-7 a-8
Appendix:
State Agencies Central Region East Region North Region South Region West Region
Agency Response
continued
State of Arizona
page
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figures:
1 Enacted 2006 Federal Funding for Homeland Security by Federal Agency (in millions) (Unaudited) 2 Arizona SHSP Amounts Expended and Unspent Award Balances Grant Years 2003 through 2006 (Unaudited) 3 Arizona LETPP Amounts Expended and Unspent Award Balances Grant Years 2004 through 2006 (Unaudited) 4 Arizona UASI Amounts Expended and Unspent Award Balances Grant Years 2003 through 2006 (Unaudited) 5 Arizona MMRS Amounts Expended and Unspent Award Balances Grant Years 2005 and 2006 (Unaudited) 6 Arizona CCP Amounts Expended and Unspent Award Balances Grant Years 2003 through 2006 (Unaudited) 7 Arizona EMPG Amounts Expended and Unspent Award Balances Grant Years 2003 through 2006 (Unaudited) 8 Arizona Homeland Security Grant Program Local Jurisdiction and State Allocation Process Grant Year 2006 9 Map of Arizona Federal Homeland Security Grant Program Regions and Arizona Counties
3 15 16 17 17 18 19 31 a-2
continued
Office of the Auditor General
page
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tables:
1 Director's Salary (Unaudited) 2 ADEM Management and Administrative Expenditures and Grant Award Amounts by Grant Year (Unaudited) 3 Date the Grant Program Was Awarded to Arizona by the Federal Government 4 Arizona Homeland Security Grant Program Award Amounts Grant Years 2003 through 2006 5 Total Homeland Security Grant Program Monies Awarded, Expended, and Unspent by Program Grant Years 2003 through 2006 (Unaudited) 6 Example of $1 Million SHSP Award Allocation in 2006 7 SHSP and LETPP Allocations Between the State and Local Jurisdictions Grant Years 2003 through 2006 (Unaudited) 8 UASI Allocations Between the State and Local Jurisdictions Grant Years 2003 through 2006 (Unaudited) 9 MMRS Allocations Between the State and Local Jurisdictions Grant Years 2005 and 2006 (Unaudited)
9
12 13 14
20 24
26
27
28
continued
State of Arizona
page
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tables (concl'd):
10 CCP Allocations Between the State and Local Jurisdictions Grant Years 2003 through 2006 (Unaudited) 11 EMPG Allocations Between the State and Local Jurisdictions Grant Years 2003 through 2006 (Unaudited) 12 Homeland Security Monies By Agency and Project Grant Years 2003 through 2005 (Unaudited) 13 Homeland Security Monies for the Central Region By Local Jurisdiction and Project Grant Years 2003 through 2005 (Unaudited) 14 Homeland Security Monies for the East Region By Local Jurisdiction and Project Grant Years 2003 through 2005 (Unaudited) 15 Homeland Security Monies for the North Region By Local Jurisdiction and Project Grant Years 2003 through 2005 (Unaudited) 16 Homeland Security Monies for the South Region By Local Jurisdiction and Project Grant Years 2003 through 2005 (Unaudited) 17 Homeland Security Monies for the West Region By Local Jurisdiction and Project Grant Years 2003 through 2005 (Unaudited)
29
30
a-9
a-21
a-43
a-49
a-63
a-85
concluded
Office of the Auditor General
page
v
State of Arizona
page
vi
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
In May 2006, the Joint Legislative Audit Committee requested that the Office of the Auditor General conduct a special financial audit of federal homeland security programs awarded to the State of Arizona. The approved audit request asked for the following information on the six grant programs that make up the State's Homeland Security Grant Program for grant years 2003 through 2006.1 H Homeland Security Grant Program administration amount of homeland security monies spent on administrative functions.
The
Homeland Security Grant Program
State Homeland Security Program Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program Urban Areas Security Initiative Metropolitan Medical Response System Citizen Corps Program Emergency Management Performance Grants
State Homeland Security Director's salary as well as any additional positions held by the Director that may add to his salary for every year he has been Director.
The
H Homeland Security Grant Program characteristics total amount of federal homeland security monies received by the State.
The
total amount of federal homeland security monies spent or encumbered by the State, counties, cities, and towns.
The
H Homeland Security Grant Program allocation process methodology used to review, approve, and allocate homeland security monies to local jurisdictions.2
The
amount of homeland security monies retained by the State and the amount allocated to local jurisdictions.
The
1 2
Grant year is the federal fiscal year that the federal government budgeted the grant program. Local jurisdiction is defined in the National Strategy for Homeland Security as "any county, city, village, town, district, or other political subdivision of any state, any Native American tribe or authorized tribal organization, or Alaska native village or organization, and includes any rural community or unincorporated town or village or any other public entity for which an application for assistance is made by a state or political subdivision thereof." Office of the Auditor General
page
1
itemization of state and local projects that have received federal homeland security monies in each grant year. The itemization shall include a description of each project's goals and objectives, the cost of the project, and whether the funding for the project is allowable under the permissible use of federal homeland security monies.
An
The approved audit request did not direct auditors to perform a detailed review of individual project expenditures. In addition, auditors were unable to obtain a description of every project's goals and objectives or determine whether each project was allowable under federal regulations due to the manner in which some grant programs were allocated, deficiencies in records maintained by the State, and the large number of projects awarded. The engagement limitations section of this chapter describes the limitations auditors encountered when conducting the audit. A Any conclusions and recommendations regarding the state-wide administration of the Homeland Security Grant Program
Overview of the Homeland Security Grant Program
Federal government--In July 2002, the President of the United States issued the
What is Homeland Security?
"Homeland security is a concerted national effort to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce America's vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the damage and recover from attacks that do occur."
Source: The National Strategy for Homeland Security, July 2002.
National Strategy for Homeland Security and soon after created the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which began operating in March 2003. The purpose of the national strategy is to mobilize and organize the nation to secure the U.S. homeland from terrorist attacks. The strategy aligns and focuses homeland security functions into six critical mission areas: intelligence and warning, border and transportation security, domestic counterterrorism, protection of critical infrastructure and key assets, defense against catastrophic threats, and emergency preparedness and response. Although many other federal agencies are involved in homeland security activities, the DHS has the dominant role in implementing this strategy.
The DHS is a blending of 22 federal agencies to centralize the leadership of various homeland security activities under a single department. Some of the more prominent agencies that are now part of the DHS include the Transportation Security Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the Coast Guard. Although many of the homeland security activities have been consolidated under the DHS, other federal agencies also continue to carry out such activities. Most of the monies allocated to other agencies are used for research and development, military security, and law enforcement activities. The federal government budgeted $54.9 billion for homeland security for federal fiscal year 2006. Figure 1 (see page 3) shows the allocation of the 2006 funding for homeland security by federal agency.
State of Arizona
page
2
The Office of Grants and Training (OG&T), within the DHS, is Figure 1: Enacted 2006 Federal Funding for responsible for directing and Homeland Security by Federal Agency (in millions) supervising federal terrorism (Unaudited) preparedness grants for states and $1,107 $564 $1,704 local jurisdictions as a means to $2,267 Department: meet the national strategy and is $2,976 the current federal awarding agency Ag ricu lt u re $25,503 for the Homeland Security Grant S t at e $4,300 Program. The OG&T administers En erg y Ot h er agencies the Homeland Security Grant Ju st ice Program through the issuance of an Healt h and Human $16,441 annual Homeland Security Grant S ervices Program: Program Guidelines and D ef en se Application Kit, which provides Ho melan d Security states and local jurisdictions with information and instructions to aid Total $54,862 them in the application process and Source: U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government Fiscal Year 2007. help them in homeland security planning, and developing and implementing state and local homeland security strategies. Before the DHS was created, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Emergency Management Agency managed the programs that make up the Homeland Security Grant Program. The Program provides funding to enhance the capacity of state and local jurisdictions to prevent, respond to, and recover from incidents of terrorism involving chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or explosive weapons, and attacks on computer information systems.
State of Arizona--In 2003, Arizona developed a plan called Securing Arizona: A
Roadmap for Arizona Homeland Security (Roadmap) to establish a long-term approach to homeland security. This plan provided a framework for strengthening the State's ability to detect, prevent, and respond to future acts of terrorism or other critical incidents. It also created the initial strategy for planning, prioritizing, and coordinating requests for funding. The plan called for the appointment of a Homeland Security Director and the creation of the Arizona Governor's Office of Homeland Security (AOHS). In addition to the 2003 Roadmap, the State also develops an annual State Homeland Security Strategy, as required by the DHS, which provides strategic direction for enhancing regional capability, capacity, and collaboration to prevent terrorist attacks within Arizona and reduce Arizona's vulnerability to terrorism and all other critical hazards that affect the safety, wellbeing, quality of life, and economic security of its citizens and residents. The strategy builds from the 2003 Roadmap. The AOHS and the Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs, Division of Emergency Management (ADEM) serve as the liaisons between the DHS and
Office of the Auditor General
page
3
state agencies and local jurisdictions within Arizona. The AOHS coordinates the allocation process of federal funding to state and local jurisdictions and approves projects ensuring compliance with federal grant guidelines and support of Arizona's homeland security strategy. Based on approved projects, the ADEM distributes the federal monies to all participating jurisdictions in the State, including other state agencies, counties, cities and towns, fire districts, and Native American tribes. During grant years 2003 through 2006, the State of Arizona was awarded homeland security funding under the following programs:
State Law
Homeland Security Program
Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program Areas Security Initiative Medical Response System
Urban
Metropolitan Citizen
Corps Program Management Performance Grants
Emergency
The objectives of each program are described in more detail in Chapter 2 of this report.
Other audit reports--In addition to this special financial audit, three other audits
of the State's Homeland Security Grant Program have been performed since January 1, 2006. first audit was completed by the Office of the Auditor General and was issued on April 27, 2006. This audit focused on whether the AOHS and the ADEM complied with federal rules and regulations applicable to the Program during fiscal year 2005. No unallowable program costs were noted during the audit; however, weaknesses were noted in the internal controls established to administer the Program. Additional information on these weaknesses is detailed in Chapter 4 of this report.
The
second audit was completed by the Arizona Department of Transportation, Office of the Inspector General, and the report was issued on June 1, 2006. This audit focused on the overall efficiency of the State's administration of the Homeland Security Grant Program. Weaknesses were noted in the processes established by the AOHS and the ADEM to review and approve homeland security projects. In addition, the report notes that the AOHS' planning process and the ADEM's fiscal administration were not always well coordinated, and a monitoring process had not been established
The
State of Arizona
page
4
to ensure state agencies and local jurisdictions were spending monies in accordance with program requirements. third audit was completed by the Arizona Department of Administration, General Accounting Office, with one report being issued on July 21, 2006, and a second report being issued on August 11, 2006. This audit primarily focused on evaluating the controls established by the AOHS and the ADEM to disburse homeland security monies. The report notes weaknesses in internal controls and instances of noncompliance with federal requirements.
The
Scope and methodology
This special financial audit focused on the federal homeland security grant programs the State received from the DHS. In conducting this audit, auditors used a variety of methods, including analyzing applicable federal regulations pertaining to the programs, interviewing personnel responsible for administering the programs, and examining various records and data maintained by the AOHS and the ADEM. In addition, auditors reviewed audit reports issued by the Arizona Department of Transportation, Office of the Inspector General; Arizona Department of Administration, General Accounting Office; U.S. Congressional Research Service; and the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Specifically: determine the amount of homeland security monies spent on administrative functions, auditors obtained cost information from the Arizona Financial Information System based on program cost account information provided by the ADEM.
T o T o
determine the Homeland Security Director's salary and the positions held by the Director within state government, auditors analyzed information from the State's Human Resource Information Solution system and the Human Resource Management System.
T determine the amount of homeland security monies received and retained by o
the State, and the amount spent or encumbered by the State, counties, cities, and towns for each year, auditors obtained the federal grant award notification sheets, the ADEM budget sheets, and the ADEM's internal records that list specific project expenditures. However, auditors noted that these internal records were not reconciled by the ADEM to the Arizona Financial Information System to ensure their completeness and accuracy.
Office of the Auditor General
page
5
determine the methodology used to review, approve, and allocate homeland security monies to local jurisdictions, auditors reviewed federal grant guidelines, interviewed program administrators, and reviewed documented program procedures. compile an itemization of state and local projects that have received homeland security monies each year, auditors obtained program budgets and project proposal sheets for each grant year and program from the AOHS and the ADEM. The budget and proposal sheets were not reconciled to the underlying local jurisdiction records. Instead, auditors performed analytical procedures using the financial data and narrative information about the uses of federal homeland security monies and interviewed program administrators about differences or variances. Auditors corrected data errors prior to reporting project information and budget data.
T o
T o
Engagement limitations
Auditors were unable to obtain all of the information detailed in the approved audit request due to the manner in which some Homeland Security Grant Programs are allocated to local jurisdictions, deficiencies in the records maintained by the State, and the large number of projects awarded during the audit period. Specifically, auditors were unable to obtain a description of the goals and objectives for every project or determine whether the funding awarded for projects was allowable under the permissible use of federal homeland security monies for the following reasons: AOHS awarded some grants to local jurisdictions in a lump sum based on specified formulas. Detailed project records for these grants were maintained by the applicable local jurisdiction and not the State. The following grants were awarded in this manner: 2003 State Homeland Security Program, and the 2003 through 2005 Urban Areas Security Initiative, Citizens Corps, and Emergency Management Performance Grants.
The
AOHS and the ADEM did not always maintain sufficient records detailing the goals and objectives of every state agency project due to staff turnover, filing errors, and oversight. State agency project records were not sufficient for the following programs: 2003 and 2004 Urban Areas Security Initiative, and the 2004 State Homeland Security Program and Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program.
The
DHS did not award five of the 2006 programs (State Homeland Security Program, Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, Urban Areas Security Initiative, Metropolitan Medical Response System, and Citizen Corps) to Arizona until July 2006. The AOHS and the ADEM did not allocate these monies to state
The
State of Arizona
page
6
agencies and local jurisdictions for individual projects until August 30, 2006, which was in accordance with the requirements established by the DHS. However, this was not in time for auditors to include the specific project's goals and objectives in this report. Arizona did receive the Emergency Management Performance Grants from the DHS in February 2006, and allocated these monies between the State and counties. Auditors did not include the specific allocations made for the 2006 Emergency Management Performance Grants in this report to ensure that consistent information is presented for all grant year 2006 programs. For grant year 2006, information regarding the amount awarded to the State for each program, and the monies the AOHS and the ADEM allocated between the State and the local jurisdictions (in total) for each program, was available and is included in the report. grant years 2003 through 2005 the AOHS and the ADEM awarded monies for approximately 450 homeland security projects to about 200 state agencies and local jurisdictions. Auditors performed detailed test work on a sample of 58 program expenditures during the fiscal year 2005 single audit for the State of Arizona to determine the allowability of project expenditures. These expenditures were selected from the grant year 2003 and 2004 State Homeland Security Program, the grant year 2004 Citizens Corps Program, and the grant year 2004 and 2005 Emergency Management Performance Grants. Auditors reported no unallowable expenditures as a result of this test work; however, auditors reported weaknesses in the internal controls established to administer the homeland security grant programs. The weaknesses noted are mentioned in Chapter 4 of this report.
For
The Auditor General and staff express their appreciation to the Director of Homeland Security, the Department of Emergency and Military Affairs Adjutant General, and the staff of the Arizona Governor's Office of Homeland Security and the Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs, Division of Emergency Management for their cooperation and assistance during this audit.
Office of the Auditor General
page
7
State of Arizona
page
8
CHAPTER 1
Administration of Arizona's Homeland Security Grant Program
The State's Director of Homeland Security is appointed by the Governor and is responsible for managing the AOHS and the ADEM. Both the AOHS and the ADEM are responsible for administering Arizona's Homeland Security Grant Program. The AOHS is primarily responsible for the overall planning and coordination of the State's homeland security efforts and the ADEM is responsible for performing the administrative functions necessary to manage the Program. Federal regulations allow the AOHS and the ADEM to incur costs for planning and organization, equipment, training, exercises, and management and administration.
Homeland Security Director's responsibilities
The Director of Homeland Security was appointed by the Governor in February 2003 and serves as the director of both the AOHS and the ADEM. Overall, the Director is responsible for leading Arizona's homeland security and emergency management efforts. As the Director of the AOHS, he is responsible for ensuring that Arizona is safe from terrorism and that protocols are established with federal, state, and local agencies in the event of terrorist activity or other emergencies. He is also responsible for developing and executing the State's homeland security strategy. As director of the ADEM, he is responsible for coordinating a multiple-agency response to largescale disasters in Arizona. Table 1 shows the Director's salary received for each fiscal year since 2003. In addition, prior to his employment with the State, he received $8,000 for consulting services on matters pertaining to homeland security performed in January 2003. From fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2006, the Director did not hold any additional positions in state government that added to his salary.
Table 1:
Director's Salary (Unaudited)
Fiscal Year
20031 2004 2005 2006
Salary Received
$ 37,424 115,083 124,847 129,635
1
The Director was appointed in February 2003.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of fiscal years 2003 through 2006 information obtained from the State of Arizona Human Resources Management System and the Human Resource Information Solution System.
Office of the Auditor General
page
9
Arizona Office of Homeland Security responsibilities
The AOHS is responsible for planning and coordinating homeland security efforts among state, federal, local, tribal, and border community agencies and entities. In addition, the AOHS advises the Governor on all homeland security matters, and oversees the allocation process of Arizona's share of monies received for the Homeland Security Grant Program. The primary focus of the AOHS is the planning function, which includes developing the State's annual homeland security strategy and coordinating the allocation of grant monies for individual homeland security projects. The AOHS is also responsible for encouraging collaboration of efforts, helping to avoid duplication of grant awards, and eliminating any security gaps between the various levels of government and the private sector.
Division of Emergency Management responsibilities
The Governor has designated the ADEM as the state administering agency (SAA) for Arizona's Homeland Security Grant Program. As the SAA, the ADEM is responsible for fiscal functions such as processing invoices for reimbursement, maintaining financial records and information, and overseeing and monitoring program expenditures. In addition, the ADEM is responsible for providing technical assistance and other support to state agencies and local jurisdictions to aid them in managing their homeland security projects. The Homeland Security Grants Management section within the ADEM is the central point of contact for the Homeland Security Grant Program. However, other sections within the ADEM also aid in planning and managing the program by executing exercises in areas such as counterterrorism and emergency preparedness and providing training to state agency and local jurisdiction personnel. Prior to the establishment of the AOHS, the ADEM was the primary homeland security grant-administering agency for the State.
Program costs
The DHS has divided Homeland Security Grant Program costs into four broad categories: planning, equipment, training, and exercises. In addition, federal regulations support select organization activities for the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program and the Urban Areas Securities Initiative program (e.g., overtime costs associated with increased security measures at critical infrastructure sites during periods of heightened alert and overtime costs for personnel or contractors to participate in information, investigative, and intelligence-sharing activities). Federal regulations do not restrict the allocation of monies across the planning, equipment, training, and exercise categories. The allowable costs have changed throughout the
State of Arizona
page
10
years for the various grant programs within the above categories. For grant year 2006, examples of allowable costs under each category are as follows: P Planning costs--Implement and manage program for equipment acquisitions, training, and exercises; materials and meeting-related expenses; develop plans, protocols, and assessments; implement homeland security support programs and adopt DHS national initiatives; hire full-time or part-time staff or consultants to assist with any related planning activities; E Equipment costs--Personal protective equipment; cyber-security enhancement equipment; chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive incident response vehicles and aviation equipment; inspection and screening systems; T Training costs--Training workshops and conferences; creation and maintenance of student databases; travel and supplies; and E Exercise costs--Designing, developing, conducting, and evaluating exercises; expenses related to exercise planning workshops, and travel and supplies. Grant participants are also allowed to incur management and administrative costs (M&A) within certain limits. The percentage and types of M&A costs allowed are specified by the DHS and have varied between grant years. For example, in grant year 2006, federal regulations allowed up to 5 percent of each homeland security grant program for M&A costs, and for grant year 2005, regulations limited M&A costs to no more than 3 percent of each program. For grant year 2006, federal regulations permit the following types of M&A costs: M Management and administrative costs-- S Staffing--Full-time or part-time staff, contractors, or consultants and the related expenses; P Planning--Developing operating plans for information collection and processing necessary to respond to the DHS, Office of Domestic Preparedness requests for information; O Overtime--Expenses for overtime work performed by employees related to M&A activities; T Travel--Expenses related to travel; M Meeting-related expenses-- Registration costs, publicity, food, and nonalcoholic beverages (subject to certain limits). Meetings under this guidance are considered formal events involving topics that will contribute to improved conduct, supervision, or management of the agency's
Office of the Auditor General
page
11
activities and are beyond a regular business meeting consisting of routine day-to-day items. Meetings also encompass conferences, conventions, seminars, training for contractors, and workshops. O Office equipment--Purchase of authorized office equipment such as personal computers, laptop computers, printers, liquid crystal display (LCD) projectors, and other equipment required to support the homeland security strategy; and F Fees and charges--Recurring fees or charges associated with certain equipment such as cell phones, fax machines, and space rental or lease. As the administering agency, the ADEM performs the administrative functions for the Homeland Security Grant Program and incurs the State's M&A costs. As noted before, planning and organization are the primary duties of the AOHS. These activities are not considered M&A activities by the DHS and are not limited. Table 2 shows the total amount of the ADEM's Table 2: ADEM Management and Administrative M&A expenditures as of June 30, 2006, by grant year. The Expenditures and Grant Award M&A expenditures have decreased since grant year 2003 Amounts by Grant Year because most of the grant awards have not been fully (Unaudited) expended and the ADEM is still incurring M&A costs. As a result, auditors could not determine whether the ADEM had State complied with the M&A limits established by the DHS for Grant M&A Grant each grant year. Such a determination would not be possible Year Expenditures Award until the ADEM closes a grant year and an audit is conducted 2003 $ 623,099 $ 53,124,845 2004 317,298 56,648,308 to determine that all applicable costs have been properly 2005 335,818 41,704,818 recorded and classified.
2006 Total 188,820 $1,465,0351 23,483,779 $174,961,750
1
The State has spent less than 1 percent of the $175 million awarded for M&A costs from grant years 2003 through 2006.
Source: Auditor General staff compilation of information obtained from the Arizona Financial Information System for grant years 2003 through 2006.
State of Arizona
page
12
CHAPTER 2
Characteristics of the Homeland Security Grant Program
During grant years 2003 through 2006, the State of Arizona has been awarded monies from the federal government for six homeland security grant programs. Together these programs compose the State's Homeland Security Grant Program. Each program has unique goals and objectives and together, they provide monies to help the State prevent, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism.
Arizona's Homeland Security Grant Program
During grant years 2003 through 2006, the State of Arizona has Table 3: Date the Grant Program Was Awarded to Arizona been awarded monies for the State by the Federal Government Homeland Security Program, Law Grant Year Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program 2003 2004 2005 2006 Program, Urban Areas Security State Homeland Security July 2003 Program Initiative, Metropolitan Medical Urban Areas Security August 2003 Response System, Citizens Corps, Initiative June 2004 and the Emergency Management July 2006 Citizen Corps Performance Grants from the March 2005 Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program federal government. As shown in N/A Metropolitan Medical N/A Table 3, the federal government Response System did not make awards to the State Emergency Management June 2003 March 2004 February until one-half to three-quarters of Performance Grants 2006 the way through the federal fiscal Source: Federal grant award notifications obtained from the ADEM for grant years 2003 through 2006. year. Upon receipt of the grant award, the State must allocate some grants to state agencies and local jurisdictions for individual projects. For example, in grant year 2006 the State was allowed 60 days to allocate the State Homeland Security Program, Urban Areas Security Initiative, and Law Enforcement
Office of the Auditor General
page
13
Methods the DHS used to award monies:
State Homeland Security Program and Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program--A base allocation is made to each participant and remaining monies are awarded based on a federal risk formula and the effectiveness of a participant's proposed solutions to their identified needs. Urban Areas Security Initiative--All awards are allocated to participants based on a federal risk formula and the effectiveness of a participant's proposed solutions to their identified needs. Metropolitan Medical Response System--Awards are distributed equally among participants. Citizen Corps Program and Emergency Management Performance Grants--A base allocation is made to each participant and remaining monies are awarded based on population.
Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security program guidelines.
Terrorism Prevention Program. In addition, most of the homeland security programs have at least a 2-year performance period to spend the grant monies. The State also receives the monies on a reimbursement basis. As such, state agencies and local jurisdictions must expend the monies upfront and then request reimbursement from the federal government. These factors, coupled with the difficulty experienced by grant participants in procuring equipment due to limited supplies, have caused delays in expending the homeland security grant award monies. In fiscal year 2005, the DHS consolidated the six homeland security programs into a single program cluster called the Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP). The DHS combined the programs into the HSGP to better facilitate and coordinate the management of funding and reflect the intent of Congress to enhance security and overall preparedness to prevent, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism. Within the HSGP each of , the six programs continues to receive a separate funding allocation. The textbox to the left shows the methods used by the DHS to award monies to program participants for grant year 2006. As shown in Table 4 below, the DHS awarded nearly $175 million to the State of Arizona for grant years 2003 through 2006.
Table 4:
Arizona Homeland Security Grant Program Award Amounts Grant Years 2003 through 2006
Grant Year 2004 2005
$31,304,000 9,289,000 12,128,223 0 650,000 3,277,085 $56,648,308 $20,021,731 7,280,630 9,996,463 910,368 254,176 3,241,450 $41,704,818
Program
State Homeland Security Program Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program1 Urban Areas Security Initiative Metropolitan Medical Response System2 Citizen Corps Program Emergency Management Performance Grants Total
1 2
2003
$38,617,000 0 11,033,467 0 351,339 3,123,039 $53,124,845
2006
$ 8,660,000 6,290,000 3,920,000 929,320 371,645 3,312,814 $23,483,779
Total
$ 98,602,731 22,859,630 37,078,153 1,839,688 1,627,160 12,954,388 $174,961,750
The Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program was first awarded by the DHS in grant year 2004. The DHS awarded the Metropolitan Medical Response System monies directly to local jurisdictions prior to grant year 2005.
Source: Federal grant award notifications obtained from the ADEM for grant years 2003 through 2006.
State of Arizona
page
14
Program goals and objectives
Each of the programs received by the State has unique goals and objectives and together they provide monies to help the State prevent, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism. An overview of the goals and objectives of each program included in the Homeland Security Grant Program, along with the amount of monies that the State and local jurisdictions have expended for each program by grant year, follows.
State Homeland Security Program (SHSP)--The SHSP provides financial
assistance directly to each of the states to prevent, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism. The SHSP also provides states with the opportunity to increase regional preparedness efforts through planning and response arrangements between jurisdictions. With the purpose of enhancing the capability of state and local agencies to prevent and respond to incidents of terrorism, the SHSP supports costs related to homeland security and emergency operations planning activities; the purchase of specialized equipment (e.g., x-ray machines, incident response vehicles, satellite data equipment, position locating and tracking systems, and robotic bomb equipment); and costs related to the design, development, conduct, and evaluation of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosives exercises and training. All SHSP monies must be used to support the State's homeland security strategy. From grant year 2003 through grant year 2006, Arizona has been awarded almost $99 million in SHSP monies. As of June 30, 2006, the State and local jurisdictions have spent approximately 65 percent of the grant year 2003 through 2005 monies awarded. The DHS did not allow the State to draw monies from the 2006 grant award until August 28, 2006. Figure 2 below shows, by grant year, the amount expended and the unspent award balance.
Figure 2: Arizona SHSP Amounts Expended and Unspent Award Balances
Grant Years 2003 through 2006 (Unaudited)
$45 $40 $35 $30 $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 $0
Total: $98,602,731
$38,617,000 $31,304,000 $20,021,731 $8,660,000
(in millions)
2003
2004
2005
2006
Gran t Year
Exp en d ed Unspent Balance
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of information obtained from the Arizona Financial Information System for fiscal years 2003 through 2006, the ADEM's summary of funds report as of June 30, 2006, and federal grant award notifications for grant years 2003 through 2006.
Office of the Auditor General
page
15
Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP)--The LETPP
provides law enforcement communities with monies to enhance capabilities for detecting, deterring, disrupting, and preventing acts of terrorism. These capabilities include increasing the following prevention activities: sharing information to preempt terrorist Figure 3: Arizona LETPP Amounts Expended attacks; target hardening (i.e., reducing the and Unspent Award Balances vulnerability of selected high-value targets by ensuring Grant Years 2004 through 2006 that buildings and operations are as resilient as (Unaudited) possible to unforeseen events or failures); identifying Total: $22,859,630 potential or developing threats; planning $14 counterterrorism and security activities; developing $12 $9,289,000 interoperable communications that can work with and $10 $7,280,630 use other systems to operate; and developing $8 $6,290,000 intervention activities that prevent terrorists from $6 executing a threat. These monies may be used for $4 planning, organizing, training, performing exercises, $2 and purchasing equipment, and are dedicated solely $0 to law enforcement and public safety agencies. The 2004 2005 2006 DHS first awarded the LETPP during grant year 2004. Gran t Year Since that time, the State has been awarded almost Exp en d ed Unspent Balance $23 million for the LETPP As of June 30, 2006, . approximately 30 percent of the grant year 2003 Source: Auditor General staff analysis of information obtained from the Arizona Financial Information System for fiscal years 2004 through 2006, the ADEM's summary of through 2005 awards had been spent by the State and funds report as of June 30, 2006, and federal grant award notifications for grant years local jurisdictions. The DHS did not allow the State to 2004 through 2006. draw monies from the 2006 grant award until August 28, 2006. Figure 3 shows, by grant year, the amount expended and the unspent award balance.
( in millions)
Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI)--The
UASI provides financial assistance to address the unique needs of large metropolitan areas through planning, equipment, training, and exercises, and to assist them in building and sustaining capabilities to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from incidents of terrorism. Urban areas must allocate all program monies in support of goals and objectives identified in their urban area homeland security strategy and state homeland security strategy. Arizona has one defined urban area, Phoenix, which includes the cities within Maricopa County and the Gila River Indian Community, Salt River-Pima Indian Community, and Fort McDowell Indian Tribe portions that lie within Maricopa County. As of June 30, 2006, the State and local jurisdictions have spent approximately 44 percent of UASI monies awarded during grant years 2003 through 2005. The DHS did not allow the State to draw monies from the 2006 grant award until August 28, 2006. Figure 4 (see page 17) shows, by grant year, the amount expended and the unspent award balance.
State of Arizona
page
16
Figure 4: Arizona UASI Amounts Expended and Unspent Award Balances
Grant Years 2003 through 2006 (Unaudited)
$14 $12 (in millions) $10 $8 $6 $4 $2 $0 2003 2004 2005 2006
$3,920,000 $11,033,467
Total: $37,078,153
$12,128,223 $9,996,463
Gran t Year
Exp en d ed Unspent Balance
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of information obtained from the Arizona Financial Information System for fiscal years 2003 through 2006, the ADEM's summary of funds report as of June 30, 2006, and federal grant award notifications for grant years 2003 through 2006.
Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS)--This
program supports designated jurisdictions to further enhance and sustain their casualty incident preparedness to respond to mass casualty events during the first hours of a response, the time Figure 5: Arizona MMRS Amounts Expended crucial to lifesaving and population protection, until and Unspent Award Balances significant external assistance can arrive. There are Grant Years 2005 and 2006 four designated MMRS jurisdictions within Arizona: (Unaudited) Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix, and Tucson. The MMRS Total: $1,839,688 program provides monies for planning, organizing, $1,200 $929,320 $910,368 training, and purchasing equipment to enhance local $1,000 jurisdictions' abilities to respond to mass casualty $800 incidents resulting from terrorist attacks, epidemic $600 outbreaks, natural disasters, and large-scale $400 hazardous materials incidents. In grant years 2003 and $200 2004, the federal government awarded the MMRS $0 directly to the local MMRS jurisdictions. For grant years 2005 2006 2005 and 2006, these monies were awarded directly to Gran t Year the State. The State has approximately 87 percent of Exp en d ed Unspent Balance the grant year 2005 award remaining as of June 30, Source: Auditor General staff analysis of information obtained from the 2006. The DHS did not allow the State to draw monies Arizona Financial Information System for fiscal years 2005 and from the 2006 grant award until August 28, 2006. 2006, the ADEM's summary of funds report as of June 30, 2006, and federal grant award notifications for grant years 2005 and 2006. Figure 5 shows, by grant year, the amount expended and the unspent award balance.
(in thousands)
Office of the Auditor General
page
17
Citizen Corps Program (CCP)--The CCP is the DHS' plan to actively involve
all citizens in hometown security through personal preparedness, training, and volunteer service. These monies are used to support Citizen Corps Councils with efforts to engage citizens in preventing, preparing for, and responding to all hazards, including planning and evaluation, public education and communication, training, participation in exercises, providing proper equipment to citizens with a role in response, and management of Citizen Corps volunteer programs and activities. The State and local jurisdictions have spent just over $1 million of the grant year 2003 through 2005 awards, as of June 30, 2006, to help educate and prepare citizens in case of a catastrophic event. The DHS did not allow the State to draw monies from the 2006 grant award until August 28, 2006. Figure 6 shows, by grant year, the amount expended and the unspent award balance.
Figure 6: Arizona CCP Amounts Expended and Unspent Award Balances
Grant Years 2003 through 2006 (Unaudited)
$700 (in thousands) $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $0 2003 2004 2005 2006
$351,339 $254,176 $371,645
Total: $1,627,160
$650,000
Gran t Year
Exp en d ed Unspent Balance
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of information obtained from the Arizona Financial Information System for fiscal years 2003 through 2006, the ADEM's summary of funds report as of June 30, 2006, and federal grant award notifications for grant years 2003 through 2006.
Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG)--The
EMPG program supports comprehensive emergency management at the state and local levels and gives states the ability to sustain and enhance the effectiveness of their emergency management programs. The EMPG is used primarily to partially fund state and local emergency management programs, with a 50 percent state costshare requirement. Most EMPG monies are budgeted for salary, travel, supplies, and other routine expenditures for operational activities. However, the EMPG
State of Arizona
page
18
enables states to develop emergency management systems that encourage partnerships among government, business, volunteer, and community organizations based on identified needs and priorities for strengthening their emergency management and catastrophic planning capabilities. Arizona has increased its emergency management support capabilities with the aid of the EMPG program. As of June 30, 2006, the State and local jurisdictions have spent approximately 89 percent of the monies awarded from grant years 2003 through 2006. Figure 7 shows, by grant year, the amount expended and the unspent award balance.
Figure 7: Arizona EMPG Amounts Expended and Unspent Award Balances
Grant Years 2003 through 2006 (Unaudited)
$4,000 $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0
Total: $12,954,388
$3,123,039 $3,277,085 $3,241,450 $3,312,814
(in thousands)
2003
2004
2005
2006
Gran t Year
Exp en d ed Unspent Balance
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of information obtained from the Arizona Financial Information System for fiscal years 2003 through 2006, the ADEM's summary of funds report as of June 30, 2006, and federal grant award notifications for grant years 2003 through 2006.
Homeland security grant awards declining--Table 5 (see page 20) shows
that Arizona's funding for the homeland security grant programs has declined by almost 60 percent between grant years 2003 and 2006, having peaked at almost $57 million in 2004 and declining to $23.5 million in 2006. In addition, of the $175 million awarded for the Homeland Security Grant Program, the State and local jurisdictions have spent just over half of the awards as of June 30, 2006, with the remaining amount obligated to state agencies and local jurisdictions for projects that further enhance and secure the State.
Office of the Auditor General
page
19
Table 5:
Total Homeland Security Grant Program Monies Awarded, Expended, and Unspent by Program Grant Years 2003 through 2006 (Unaudited)
Unspent Balances Program
SHSP UASI
Awarded Amount
$ 38,617,000 11,033,467 351,339 3,123,039 $ 53,124,845 $ 31,304,000 9,289,000 12,128,223 650,000 3,277,085 $ 56,648,308 $ 20,021,731 7,280,630 9,996,463 910,368 254,176 3,241,450 $ 41,704,818 $ 8,660,000 6,290,000 3,920,000 929,320 371,645 3,312,814 $ 23,483,779 $174,961,750
Expended Amount
$37,500,277 9,726,849 351,339 3,123,039 $50,701,504 $16,647,073 4,609,033 4,603,931 647,681 3,277,031 $29,784,749 $ 4,189,646 302,251 191,180 116,968 46,535 3,114,699 $ 7,961,279
Amount
$ 1,116,723 1,306,618
Percent
2.89% 11.84 0.00 0.00
Average Percent
2003
CCP EMPG Totals SHSP LETPP UASI CCP EMPG Totals SHSP LETPP UASI
$ 2,423,341 $14,656,927 4,679,967 7,524,292 2,319 54 $26,863,559 $15,832,085 6,978,379 9,805,283 793,400 207,641 126,751 $33,743,539 $ 8,660,000 6,290,000 3,920,000 929,320 371,645 100.00% 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 39.04 79.07% 95.85 98.09 87.15 81.69 3.91 46.82% 50.38 62.04 0.36 0.00
4.56%
2004
47.42%
2005
MMRS CCP EMPG Totals SHSP LETPP UASI
80.91%
2006
MMRS CCP EMPG Totals
$ 2,019,586 $ 2,019,586 $90,467,118
1,293,228 $21,464,193 $84,494,632
91.40% 48.29%
Combined Grant Years Totals
Source: Auditor General staff compilation of information obtained from the Arizona Financial Information System for fiscal years 2003 through 2006, the ADEM's summary of funds report as of June 30, 2006, and federal grant award notifications for grant years 2003 through 2006.
State of Arizona
page
20
CHAPTER 3
Homeland Security grant allocation process
Annually, the AOHS coordinates with state agencies, local and tribal governments, and nongovernmental organizations to develop a state strategy that addresses the risks of terrorist and catastrophic events and the capabilities and needs of the State to respond to such events. Based on the objectives set forth in the state strategy, the AOHS submits a state-wide proposal to the DHS requesting homeland security funding. The DHS evaluates proposals submitted by all applicants, determines the funding awarded for each homeland security grant program, and notifies participants of their grant awards. Once awarded, the AOHS and the ADEM allocate monies between the state and the local jurisdictions based on the DHS requirements. After this allocation, the AOHS and the ADEM determine their costs related to planning, exercises, training, equipment, and administration that will be funded with the monies allocated to the State. Any remaining state monies are then distributed to state agencies for individual homeland security projects. Monies allocated to local jurisdictions are awarded to the jurisdictions based on a lump-sum allocation or for individual homeland security projects. The allocation process used to award local jurisdiction monies is unique for each grant program.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security allocation requirements
When allocating Homeland Security Grant Program monies to state agencies and local jurisdictions, the AOHS and the ADEM must follow requirements imposed by the DHS. The requirements imposed by the DHS for allocating the monies have changed from grant year 2003 through grant year 2006. The DHS allocation requirements between the state and local jurisdictions imposed for the grant year 2006 award are as follows. S State Homeland Security Program, Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, and Urban Areas Security Initiative--At least 80 percent of the total grant award must be allocated to local jurisdictions. If requested in writing by the
Office of the Auditor General
page
21
local jurisdictions, the State may retain a portion of the local jurisdictions' allocation provided the State uses the monies to directly support the local jurisdictions. Occasionally, local jurisdictions may request the State to retain a portion of their funding to provide comprehensive training and exercises that the local jurisdictions do not have the staff or knowledge to provide, or to help procure equipment items that the State can obtain at better prices. M Metropolitan Medical Response System--The DHS specifies the award amount for each local MMRS jurisdiction. Arizona has four local MMRS jurisdictions: Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix, and Tucson. If approved by the MMRS jurisdictions, the State may retain up to 20 percent of the program funding to facilitate strategy and capability integration between the State and the local MMRS jurisdictions. However, the DHS encourages states to pass the entire MMRS program funding directly to the specified jurisdiction. C Citizen Corps Program and Emergency Management Performance Grants-- The DHS imposes no allocation requirements for these programs. As a result, the State may retain the entire grant award.
Arizona's allocation processes
The allocation processes used by the AOHS and the ADEM for the homeland security grant programs have changed from grant years 2003 through 2006. Modifications in the allocation processes are due to changes in the federal regulations applicable to the programs, and the AOHS and the ADEM refining and formalizing their processes. For grant year 2006, the AOHS used the same process to allocate grant monies for state agency projects for all homeland security grants. Grant awards for local jurisdiction projects followed a unique process for each grant because committees and councils representing the local jurisdictions help determine the individual projects awarded monies for most grants. The following sections provide more detail on the allocation processes used by the AOHS and the ADEM for each grant program for grant year 2006. Figure 8 (see pages 32 through 33) summarizes the allocation process by grant program.
State Homeland Security Program and Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program allocation process
To allocate the SHSP and the LETPP awards, the AOHS divides the award as required by the DHS with at least 80 percent being allocated to local jurisdictions through a regional approach and the remaining award being retained by the State.
State of Arizona
page
22
Regional approach--To implement the regional approach, the AOHS has divided
the State's counties into five regions: Central, East, North, South, and West to aid in distributing Counties Within Arizona's grant monies to local jurisdictions within the Five Regions region. The AOHS allocates monies to each region by providing a base amount and then Central--Maricopa East--Gila, Graham, Greenlee, and Pinal adding an additional amount based on a risk North--Apache, Coconino, and Navajo formula (i.e., risk= threat x vulnerability x South--Cochise, Pima, Santa Cruz, and Yuma population). The components of the risk formula West--La Paz, Mohave, and Yavapai used in the allocation process to the regions is shown in the textbox to the right. The AOHS developed this formula AOHS Risk Formula Components to help ensure that the SHSP and the LETPP monies are allocated to local jurisdictions with the greatest Risk= Threat נVulnerability נPopulation overall risk.
State monies--The
Threat = monies retained by the AOHS Total number of potential threat elements in Arizona and the ADEM are used for planning, equipment, training, and exercise costs. As noted before, federal Number of critical infrastructure sites within region regulations do not restrict the allocation of monies Vulnerability = Total number of critical infrastructure sites in Arizona across these categories. Monies are also used by the ADEM for management and administrative costs, Number of persons within region which are limited by federal regulations. The ADEM Population = Total number of persons in Arizona develops a budget based on input received from officials within the AOHS and the ADEM. The budget details the anticipated planning costs of the AOHS and the anticipated planning, equipment, training, exercise, and management and administration costs of the ADEM. The AOHS and the ADEM hold a funding strategy meeting between the Director, Deputy Directors, Assistant Directors, and the Homeland Security Grant Administrator to review and approve the proposed budget. Any remaining monies not retained by the AOHS and the ADEM are allocated to other state agencies for individual homeland security projects.
Number of potential threat elements within region
Table 6 (see page 24) provides an example of how a $1 million grant award from the DHS for the grant year 2006 SHSP would be allocated between the regions and the State. As shown in the table, the first step involves allocating at least 80 percent of the award to the regions for distribution to local jurisdictions. Next, the AOHS and the ADEM determine how the monies retained by the State will be used.
Project funding--After the initial allocations to the regions and to the AOHS and
the ADEM, the AOHS makes a further allocation to fund individual projects proposed by state agencies and local jurisdictions by using the following processes. S State agency projects--State agencies submit projects to the AOHS for review and approval. The Assistant Director of Strategic Policy at the AOHS
Office of the Auditor General
page
23
Table 6:
Example of a $1 Million SHSP Award Allocation in 2006
$1,000,000 award amount
$1,000,000 award would be allocated 80% to Regions and 20% to State Agencies
(Includes a base amount of $360,000 and a risk amount of $440,000)
80% Regional Allocation $800,000
Example: Central region's allocation: Base amount + Risk amount $72,000 + $226,600 = $298,600 Base amount: $360,000 ?regions = $72,000 Risk amount: $440,000 נ0.515 = $226,600
$1,000,000 נ80% = $800,000 Risk Regions Factor
Central East North South West 0.515 0.043 0.078 0.280 0.084 $ 298,600 90,920 106,320 195,200 108,960
$800,000 Remaining award for distribution to ADEM, AOHS, and other state agencies $1,000,000 ? $800,000 = $200,000 Allocated to ADEM and AOHS:
20% State Agency Allocation $200,000
Management and administration costs (5%) $1,000,000 נ5% = $50,000 Planning Exercises Training Equipment Total allocated to ADEM and AOHS
$ 50,000
XX,XXX XX,XXX XX,XXX XX,XXX
XXX,XXX XX,XXX
Balance for state agency projects
$200,000
receives all state agency project proposals and reviews them to ensure that they align with the state homeland security strategy and national priorities, support and enhance state capabilities, reduce risk, and comply with federal grant guidelines. The State's current strategy and threat needs determine which projects are of more importance during the current grant cycle. In addition, the Assistant Director looks at projects that were approved in a prior grant year to decide if additional funding is necessary for those projects. The Director of Homeland Security provides the final approval. The ADEM sends letters to state agencies notifying them of their awards. For grant year 2006,
State of Arizona
page
24
state agencies submitted 23 projects for consideration. The Assistant Director recommended 10 projects to the Director of Homeland Security for final approval. The Director reviewed and approved all projects as recommended. L Local jurisdiction projects--As noted earlier, the AOHS has divided the state into five regions. Each of these regions includes the respective local jurisdictions located within that particular region. In 2004, the AOHS established a Regional Advisory Council (RAC) in each region to promote regional collaboration and aid in assessing threats and vulnerabilities to terrorism. Each RAC comprises 10 members consisting of first responders (e.g., police and fire) and elected officials who reside or work in that region. Each member serves a 2-year staggered term. The RAC is responsible for developing, implementing, and maintaining a regional homeland security strategy that aligns with the State's homeland security strategy. The regional strategy provides local jurisdictions and RAC members with direction on how projects will be prioritized. Local jurisdictions submit project proposals to their respective RAC. The members of the RAC review each project proposal to ensure that the project is sufficiently justified, complies with federal grant guidelines, and supports the region's overall homeland security strategy. After the RAC reviews the projects, it prioritizes them and recommends projects to the AOHS for funding. For example, for grant year 2006, local jurisdictions submitted 54 project proposals to the central region RAC. The RAC recommended 21 of these projects to the AOHS for funding. There is one additional step for the LETPP: the law enforcement members of the RAC review the LETPP project proposals first. Projects approved by the law enforcement members are then recommended to the other RAC members for approval. The AOHS planners and staff review the funding recommendations made by the RAC and review each project to ensure that it aligns with the State's homeland security strategy and national priorities, supports and enhances state and local capabilities, reduces risk, and complies with federal grant guidelines. The Director of Homeland Security is then briefed on the proposed projects and provides the final approval. If a project is rejected, the RAC may revise the project or submit an alternate project to the AOHS for review and approval. Upon approval, the ADEM sends letters to the local jurisdictions notifying them of their awards. For grant year 2006, the RACs submitted 119 SHSP and LETPP projects to the AOHS for review and approval. All of the projects were approved by the Director of Homeland Security as submitted.
Office of the Auditor General
page
25
Program summary--For
grant year 2003, the AOHS awarded the SHSP monies to each county in a lump sum. The counties were then responsible for allocating monies to the local jurisdictions within the county for individual projects and retaining project records. As a result, the detailed goals and objectives for each project were not available from the AOHS or the ADEM. Furthermore, neither the AOHS nor the ADEM were able to locate the detailed records for the state agency projects for grant year 2004. Auditors also noted that for grant years 2003 through 2005, the AOHS did not always maintain sufficient documentation to support the approval or rejection of projects submitted by state agencies and local jurisdictions. Table 7 summarizes the allocation of the SHSP and the LETPP monies between the State and local jurisdictions for grant years 2003 through 2006. The attached Appendix details the allocation of the SHSP and the LETPP monies for grant years 2003 through 2005.
Table 7:
SHSP and LETPP Allocations Between the State and Local Jurisdictions Grant Years 2003 through 2006 (Unaudited)
SHSP Allocations State Local Jurisdictions Amount Percent Amount Percent
$ 7,226,400 5,618,034 4,004,346 1,732,000 $18,580,780 19% 18 20 20 19% $31,390,600 25,685,966 16,017,385 6,928,000 $80,021,951 81% 82 80 80 81%
Grant Year
2003 2004 2005 2006 Total all years
Total
$38,617,000 31,304,000 20,021,731 8,660,000 $98,602,731
Grant Year
2003 2004 2005 2006 Total all years
LETPP Allocations State Local Jurisdictions Amount Percent Amount Percent
$ 0 1,857,800 1,456,126 1,258,000 $4,571,926 0% 20 20 20 20% 0 7,431,200 5,824,504 5,032,000 $18,287,704 $ 0% 80 80 80 80% $
Total
0 9,289,000 7,280,630 6,290,000 $22,859,630
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of the ADEM internal records, including budget worksheets and Excel spreadsheets, for grant years 2003 through 2006.
State of Arizona
page
26
Urban Areas Security Initiative allocation process
To allocate the UASI award, the ADEM first divides the award as required by the DHS with at least 80 percent being allocated to Maricopa County for local jurisdiction projects and the remaining award being retained by the AOHS and the ADEM for administrative costs, planning, exercises, training, and distribution to other state agencies for individual projects. The AOHS and the ADEM allocate monies to individual state agency projects using the same process described earlier for the SHSP and the LETPP Allocation of monies to local jurisdiction projects is determined as follows. .
Local jurisdiction projects--The
DHS requires urban areas to establish a committee that is responsible for developing, coordinating, and implementing all program initiatives including strategy development and allocating program monies. Local jurisdictions within the metropolitan Phoenix area submit their project proposals to the UASI steering committee. This committee comprises 25 voting members who represent the jurisdictions within metropolitan Phoenix that are eligible for funding. In addition, there are approximately 25 nonvoting members from surrounding jurisdictions. The members of the Committee review each project proposal to ensure that the project supports the overall UASI strategy and determine the allocation of monies to each project. Committee members submit suitable projects for final approval to the UASI working group, which is composed of the Director of Homeland Security, the Emergency Management Director for Maricopa County, and the Emergency Management Coordinator for the City of Phoenix. Any one of the three members of the working group can reject a project. Maricopa County sends letters to the local jurisdictions notifying them of their award. County retains project information for projects funded with the UASI monies. As a result, the detailed goals and objectives for each project were not available from the AOHS or the ADEM. Table 8: UASI Allocations Furthermore, neither the AOHS Between the State and Local Jurisdictions or the ADEM were able to Grant Years 2003 through 2006 locate the detailed records for (Unaudited) the state agency projects for grant years 2003 and 2004. UASI Allocations Table 8 summarizes the State Local Jurisdictions allocation of the UASI monies Grant Year Amount Percent Amount Percent between the State and local jurisdictions for grant years 2003 through 2006. The attached Appendix details the allocation of the UASI monies to individual state agency projects and to local jurisdictions for grant years 2003 through 2005.
2003 2004 2005 2006 Total all years $2,206,693 2,425,644 1,999,293 784,000 $7,415,630 20% 20 20 20 20% $ 8,826,774 9,702,579 7,997,170 3,136,000 $29,662,523 80% 80 80 80 80%
Program summary--Maricopa
Total
$11,033,467 12,128,223 9,996,463 3,920,000 $37,078,153
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of the ADEM internal records, including budget worksheets and Excel spreadsheets, for grant years 2003 through 2006.
Office of the Auditor General
page
27
Metropolitan Medical Response System allocation process
The DHS specifies the award amount that each local MMRS jurisdiction (Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix, and Tucson) is to receive. Program guidelines allow the ADEM to retain a portion of the grant award, with the approval of the MMRS steering committee, for administrative and management costs incurred. The remainder of the allocation goes to the local MMRS jurisdictions. The AOHS and the MMRS steering committee use the following process to allocate monies for local jurisdiction projects.
Local jurisdiction projects--The AOHS first allocates the monies available to the
local MMRS jurisdictions (i.e., Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix, and Tucson) based on the dollar amount specified by the DHS for allocation to each jurisdiction. As required by the DHS, the MMRS jurisdictions have established a state-wide MMRS steering committee that is responsible for developing, coordinating, and implementing all program initiatives including strategy development and allocating program monies. Local jurisdictions within the recognized metropolitan areas submit their project proposals to the state-wide MMRS steering committee for approval. The state-wide committee comprises eight members, two members from each local MMRS jurisdiction. The members of the committee review each project proposal to ensure that the project supports the overall MMRS strategy and to determine the allocation of monies to each project. The Committee then sends the approved projects to the ADEM. The ADEM Homeland Security Grant Administrator reviews the project descriptions and ensures that the project falls within program guidelines. The MMRS steering Table 9: MMRS Allocations committee then notifies the Between the State and Local Jurisdictions jurisdictions of the grant awards. Grant Years 2005 and 2006 (Unaudited) Program summary--Table 9 summarizes the allocation of the MMRS monies between the State and MMRS Allocations local MMRS jurisdictions for grant State Local Jurisdictions Total Grant Year Amount Percent Amount Percent years 2005 and 2006. The attached 2005 $ 5,462 1% $ 904,906 99% $ 910,368 Appendix details the allocation of the 2006 27,880 3 901,440 97 929,320 MMRS monies to the ADEM and to Total all years $33,342 2% $1,806,346 98% $1,839,688 each local jurisdiction for grant year 2005.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of the ADEM internal records, including budget worksheets and Excel spreadsheets, for grant years 2005 and 2006.
State of Arizona
page
28
Citizens Corps Program allocation process
The DHS requires that CCP monies be used to form and sustain a State Citizen Corps Council. In addition, the DHS requires that the state administering agency (i.e., ADEM) coordinate all citizen education, communication, training, and participation activities, and must be included on the State Citizen Corps Council. The Arizona State Citizen Corps Council (ACCC) is comprised of 3 executive positions (chair, vice-chair, and immediate past chair) and 22 other members. All members are appointed by the Governor and the chair and vice chair are elected by the Council members and serve a 1-year term. The ACCC is responsible for increasing public awareness, sharing information, promoting training, and encouraging partnerships to help Arizona better prepare for and respond to threats of terrorism, crime, public health issues, and disasters of all kinds. The CCP monies that remain with the State are used to support the administration of the CCP and the activities of the ACCC (e.g., public awareness programs). The DHS does not require that CCP monies be shared with local jurisdictions. However, the ACCC has elected to share a portion of the CCP award with local jurisdictions or local Citizen Corps Councils each year. For grant year 2005, the ACCC choose to distribute a small amount of money to three local Citizen Corps Councils to help them continue developing and enhancing their programs. For grant year 2006, the ACCC elected to allocate the CCP monies to the counties based on a population formula. Counties were awarded monies to deliver training, establish citizen emergency response teams, and establish new or maintain existing Citizen Corps Councils. Currently in Arizona, 34 local Citizen Corps Councils (12 for county governments, 19 for city Table 10: CCP Allocations and town governments, and 3 Between the State and Local Jurisdictions for tribal governments) have Grant Years 2003 through 2006 been established to involve (Unaudited) citizens in hometown security.
Program summary--The
CCP grant was not awarded Grant Year for individual projects; 2003 $ 87,835 25% $263,504 therefore, no information 2004 179,120 28 470,880 regarding detailed projects 2005 244,176 96 10,000 was available. Table 10 2006 197,920 53 173,725 Total all years $709,051 44% $918,109 summarizes the allocation of the CCP monies between the State and local jurisdictions Source: Auditor General staff analysis of the ADEM internal records, including spreadsheets, for grant years 2003 through 2006. for grant years 2003 through 2006. The attached Appendix details the allocation of the CCP monies to the State, local Citizen Corps Councils, and the counties for grant years 2003 through 2005.
CCP Allocations State Local Jurisdictions Amount Percent Amount Percent
75% 72 4 47 56%
Total
$ 351,339 650,000 254,176 371,645 $1,627,160
budget worksheets and Excel
Office of the Auditor General
page
29
Emergency Management Performance Grant allocation process
The DHS does not require the State to allocate EMPG monies to local jurisdictions. However, the ADEM has elected to allocate 33 percent of the grant award to the counties. The ADEM retains the remaining monies to support emergency management planning, assist the Arizona emergency response commission, and offer state-wide assistance for high-risk emergencies (e.g., fire preparedness). One of the ADEM's primary responsibilities is to administer the State's emergency management programs. The ADEM uses the following process to allocate monies to the counties.
County allocation--Monies are allocated to each county in a lump sum with 50
percent of the total being equally distributed among the 15 counties, 35 percent distributed based on a county's percentage of overall unincorporated population, and 15 percent distributed based on a county's percentage of overall incorporated population. The counties are then responsible for funding individual projects. The ADEM sends letters to the counties notifying them of their awards. county retains all documentation of the projects funded with the EMPG monies. As a result, detailed goals and objectives for each project were not available from the AOHS or the ADEM. Table 11 Table 11: EMPG Allocations summarizes the allocation of the Between the State and Local Jurisdictions EMPG monies between the State and Grant Years 2003 through 2006 the counties for grant years 2003 (Unaudited) through 2006. The attached Appendix details the allocation of the EMPG to EMPG Allocations the state programs and the counties State Local Jurisdictions for grant years 2003 through 2005. Total Grant Year Amount Percent Amount Percent
2003 2004 2005 2006 Total all years $2,040,414 2,194,460 2,158,825 2,230,189 $8,623,888 65% 67 67 67 67% $1,082,625 1,082,625 1,082,625 1,082,625 $4,330,500 35% 33 33 33 33% $ 3,123,039 3,277,085 3,241,450 3,312,814 $12,954,388
Program summary--Each
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of the ADEM internal records, including budget worksheets and Excel spreadsheets, for grant years 2003 through 2006.
State of Arizona
page
30
Figure 8: Arizona Homeland Security Grant Program
Local Jurisdiction and State Allocation Process Grant Year 2006
SHSP
Project-based allocations
LETPP
Local Jurisdiction Allocation Process
UASI
Project-based allocations
80% of grant monies
80% of grant monies
At least 80 percent of grant monies are allocated for local jurisdiction projects. Local jurisdictions submit project proposals to their RAC. The RACs evaluate project proposals and submit approved projects to the AOHS for final approval. The AOHS planners and staff review the projects recommended by the RACs and ensure they align with state and national strategies and comply with program requirements. Projects are submitted to the Director of Homeland Security for final approval.
At least 80 percent of grant monies are allocated for local jurisdiction projects within Arizona's designated urban area. Local jurisdictions submit project proposals to the UASI steering committee. The steering committee evaluates project proposals and submits approved projects to the UASI working group for final approval.
State Allocation Process
20% of grant monies 20% of grant monies
The remaining 20 percent of grant monies are allocated to the State. The AOHS and the ADEM retain a portion of state-allocated monies for planning, equipment, training, exercises, and management and administrative costs. Remaining monies are allocated to state agencies for homeland security projects. State agencies submit project proposals to the AOHS Assistant Director of Strategic Policy. Projects are reviewed to ensure they align with state and national strategies and comply with program requirements. Projects are submitted to the Director of Homeland Security for final approval.
The remaining 20 percent of grant monies are allocated to the State. The AOHS and the ADEM retain a portion of state-allocated monies for planning, training, exercises, and management and administrative costs. Remaining monies are allocated to state agencies for homeland security projects. State agencies submit project proposals to the AOHS. Projects are reviewed to ensure they align with state and national strategies and comply with program requirements. Projects are approved by the Director of Homeland Security.
Source: Auditor General staff summary of information provided by AOHS and ADEM staff.
Office of the Auditor General
page
31
Figure 8: (Concl'd)
MMRS
Lump-sum and project-based allocations
CCP
Lump-sum allocation
EMPG
Lump-sum allocation
Local Jurisdiction Allocation Process
97% of grant monies 47% of grant monies 33% of grant monies
The DHS specifies the award amount for each MMRS jurisdiction. The State may only retain monies with the approval of the MMRS steering committee. Ninety-seven percent of grant monies were allocated to the MMRS jurisdictions for grant year 2006.
The DHS does not require the State to allocate monies to local jurisdictions. However, for grant year 2006 the ACCC elected to allocate monies to the counties based on a population formula. The ACCC allowed counties to spend these monies to deliver trainings, establish citizen emergency response teams, and maintain existing or establish new Citizens Corp Councils.
The DHS does not require the State to allocate monies to local jurisdictions. However, for grant year 2006 the ADEM elected to allocate 33 percent of the grant award to the counties with 50 percent being equally distributed and 50 percent being distributed based on population. Counties used these monies to fund emergency management programs.
State Allocation Process
3% of grant monies 53% of grant monies 67% of grant monies
Local jurisdictions submit their project proposals to the MMRS steering committee for evaluation and approval. Three percent of grant monies were retained by the State for grant year 2006 for management and administrative costs.
The ADEM retains monies allocated to the State to support the administration of the CCP and the activities of the ACCC.
The ADEM retains the 67 percent of the monies allocated to the State for emergency management planning, to support the Arizona emergency response commission, and to offer state-wide assistance for high-risk emergencies.
State of Arizona
page
32
CHAPTER 4
Conclusions and recommendations on the statewide administration of the Homeland Security Grant Program
Auditors noted four matters in the administration of the Homeland Security Grant Program that merit attention. The first relates to the sufficiency of the records maintained by the AOHS and the ADEM for the homeland security grants. Auditors noted that the documentation maintained for individual projects was often incomplete. The AOHS and the ADEM should ensure that complete documentation is maintained for all projects awarded homeland security monies. The second matter relates to performing an adequate review of reimbursement requests submitted by state agencies and local jurisdictions. Auditors noted that the ADEM did not verify reimbursement requests received to the approved project files prior to payment. Reimbursement requests submitted by state agencies and local jurisdictions should be verified against the approved project prior to payment. The third matter relates to preparing reconciliations of expenditures between the State's accounting system and the accounting records maintained by the ADEM. Auditors noted discrepancies between the expenditures recorded in the State's accounting system and the expenditures recorded in the ADEM's internal records. Furthermore, ADEM is in the process of performing a complete reconciliation of the expenditure information contained in the systems, but has not yet completed the reconciliations. The ADEM should prepare timely reconciliations of expenditures, and investigate, resolve, and correct all differences noted. The fourth matter relates to the AOHS' and the ADEM's coordination of their administrative responsibilities. Instances were noted in which the AOHS and the ADEM did not share information on project changes and assumed that the other entity had maintained program documentation. The AOHS and the ADEM should better coordinate the administration of the homeland security grants.
Adequate documentation should be retained for projects
When compiling the information specified in the special audit request, auditors noted that project files maintained by the AOHS and the ADEM were incomplete.
Office of the Auditor General
page
33
Specifically, documentation regarding project descriptions, changes to project award amounts, and reallocation of project monies were not available for over a third of the projects examined. Further, auditors noted that documentation was not always maintained for transfers between jurisdictions and within jurisdictions. When a local jurisdiction wanted to make a transfer, either changing funding between projects or adding a new project, it contacted either the AOHS or the ADEM, usually by phone. However, these changes were not always documented by the AOHS or the ADEM. Even though documentation was not always maintained, the AOHS and the ADEM personnel were able to explain the reason for most of the missing or incomplete documentation, and could provide auditors with additional information. In addition, auditors noted the AOHS did not always maintain complete documentation to support the approval or rejection of projects proposed by state agencies and local jurisdictions. This is particularly important given that final approval of projects for some grant programs is the responsibility of the Director of Homeland Security. Maintaining sufficient documentation to demonstrate accountability for the homeland security grant monies received from the DHS is essential to grants administration. A lack of sufficient documentation could result in the DHS or auditors questioning monies allocated to state agency and local jurisdiction projects or individual costs incurred for the homeland security grants and result in the AOHS and the ADEM having to repay the DHS for these questioned costs. The AOHS and the ADEM should maintain complete documentation for all homeland security grants projects to help ensure accountability over the State's homeland security grants.
Reimbursement requests should be verified to the approved project
Auditors noted that the ADEM did not verify reimbursement requests submitted by state agencies and local jurisdictions to the approved project prior to payment. Performing such a verification is an effective means of ensuring that grant monies are only expended for goods and services authorized in the approved project. It is particularly important given the large number of individual projects that are awarded funding. The ADEM did ensure all expenditures were eligible within the applicable grant guidelines and that the reimbursement requests fit within the scope of the entity's operations. However, the ADEM should verify reimbursement requests to the approved project file in order to properly monitor monies expended by state agencies and local jurisdictions for homeland security projects. The comparison should focus on the approved purpose of the project and on the budgeted expenditures for the project. Expenditures incurred by state agencies and local jurisdictions that are not authorized in the project award should not be reimbursed.
State of Arizona
page
34
Grant accounting records should be reconciled
When evaluating the controls established to administer the homeland security grants, auditors noted that the ADEM had not completed reconciliations of expenditure information recorded in the State's financial accounting system (AFIS) to individual project expenditures recorded in the ADEM's internal records. As a result, auditors noted discrepancies in the expenditure amounts recorded. The ADEM used AFIS to process reimbursements made to state agencies and local jurisdictions for homeland security grants. AFIS records reimbursements by expenditure type (e.g., grants to local governments) and not by entity or individual grant project. The ADEM recorded detailed accounting information for each grant project using electronic spreadsheets. These spreadsheets included the state agency or local jurisdiction, the project award amount, expenditure reimbursements, and the remaining project budget. Reconciling the expenditure information in the AFIS to the expenditure information contained in the spreadsheets is necessary to help ensure the spreadsheets accurately reflect all reimbursements. These spreadsheets are the primary tool used by the ADEM to ensure individual grant projects remain within budget. The ADEM has begun the process of reconciling the AFIS to their internal records for grant years 2003 through 2005. However, to properly control the reimbursement of homeland security grant monies, it should prepare monthly reconciliations, investigate and resolve discrepancies, and make all necessary corrections.
Coordination between the AOHS and the ADEM should be improved
While conducting the special audit, auditors noted that the AOHS and the ADEM did not always coordinate their activities. For example, the AOHS did not always provide the ADEM with project descriptions and updated project information, and the ADEM did not always notify the AOHS of project revisions. Furthermore, instances were noted when both the AOHS and the ADEM believed the other had maintained program documentation, when neither entity had maintained the appropriate documentation. The AOHS and the ADEM should better coordinate the administration of the homeland security grants to help ensure each entity has the information necessary to comply with applicable federal rules and regulations. Auditors also noted that Senate Bill 1264, approved during the 47th Legislature, 2nd session, created the Arizona Department of Homeland Security. The AOHS staff indicated that preliminary plans for the new department included a Finance and Administration Division with a tentative staff of seven employees. This may help to alleviate some of the coordination problems the AOHS and the ADEM have experienced.
Office of the Auditor General
page
35
Previous deficiencies noted
In addition to the matters noted above, auditors noted deficiencies with the administration of the homeland security grants while performing the 2005 single audit work for the State of Arizona. These deficiencies involved inadequate monitoring of subrecipients (i.e., local jurisdictions), failure to obligate monies to local jurisdictions within the allotted time frame set by the federal government, a lack of policies and procedures in place to limit federal cash on hand, not obtaining memorandums of understanding from local jurisdictions when making purchases on their behalf, and not ensuring local jurisdictions were not excluded by the federal government from participating in federal programs. These deficiencies are included in the State of Arizona's June 30, 2005, Single Audit Reporting Package and the Department of Emergency and Military Affairs June 30, 2005, Management Letter. These reports are available on the Arizona Office of the Auditor General's Web site at www.azauditor.gov.
Recommendations
1. The AOHS and the ADEM should maintain complete documentation for all grant projects to help ensure accountability for the State's homeland security grant monies. The ADEM should verify reimbursement requests submitted by state agencies and local jurisdictions to project files to help ensure homeland security monies are expended only for authorized purposes. The ADEM should prepare written monthly reconciliations of expenditures recorded on the State's accounting system to the detailed project spreadsheets to help ensure the accuracy of the expenditure information by project. The AOHS and the ADEM should better coordinate the administration of the homeland security grants to help ensure compliance with federal rules and regulations.
2.
3.
4.
State of Arizona
page
36
APPENDIX
Detailed project analysis
This appendix presents the individual state agency and local jurisdiction projects funded by Arizona's Homeland Security Grant Program. The projects are broken out into six sections: one section for state agencies and five sections for each of the regions (Central, East, North, South, and West). There is Homeland Security a one-page summary sheet for each section. For state agencies, the Grant Program Acronyms summary sheet presents the state agencies that received program monies for grant years 2003 through 2005 and the total amounts ADEM--Arizona Division of Emergency state agencies received per program. For each of the regions, the Management summary sheet presents the amounts received by program from grant years 2003 through 2005 and a breakout of amounts received AOHS--Arizona Governor's Office of by jurisdiction type (i.e., county, city/town, fire district, or Indian Homeland Security community). In addition to the summary sheet, each section has a table that contains the individual projects funded by homeland Federal Programs: security monies. The tables include the state agency or local CCP--Citizen Corps Program jurisdiction, federal grant program that funded the project, grant year, EMPG--Emergency Management Performance Grants project name, project description (purpose), and the budgeted LETPP--Law Enforcement Terrorism expenditure amount. Auditors obtained the information for this Prevention Program Appendix from program budget worksheets and project proposal MMRS--Metropolitan Medical Response sheets for grant years 2003 through 2005 from the AOHS and the System ADEM. As noted previously, auditors were unable to obtain specific SHSP--State Homeland Security Program goals and objectives (purpose) of each homeland security project UASI--Urban Areas Security Initiative due to the manner in which some grant programs were allocated to the local jurisdictions and deficiencies in the records maintained for state agency projects. For these projects, auditors presented the information that was available from the AOHS and the ADEM. In addition, this Appendix does not present information for grant year 2006, as the State did not receive and allocate all grant awards from the DHS in time for inclusion in this report.
Office of the Auditor General
page
a-1
Figure 9: Map of Arizona Federal Homeland Security Grant Program Regions
and Arizona Counties
Coconino Mohave
Apache
NORTH
Navajo
WEST
Yavapai La Paz
CENTRAL
EAST
Pinal Graham Pima
Yuma
SOUTH
Santa Cruz Cochise
State of Arizona
page
a-2
Greenlee
Maricopa
Gila
Arizona Homeland Security Grant Monies
State Agencies
Budget Allocations by Grant Year:
State Agency
Arizona State University Army National Guard Commission of Indian Affairs Criminal Justice Commission Department of Administration Department of Agriculture Department of Corrections Department of Economic Security Department of Environmental Quality Department of Liquor Licenses and Control Department of Public Safety Department of Transportation Division of Emergency Management Northern Arizona University Office of Homeland Security Radiation Regulatory Agency University of Arizona Total $
2003
100,000 621,720 200,000 80,000 242,000 100,000 694,220 1,156,716 656,287 15,338,649 100,000 550,000 397,470 12,280 $20,249,342
2004
$ $ 914,625 300,000 400,000 4,955,434 840,000 7,328,249 1,824,948 250,000 $16,813,256
2005
13,000 353,976 120,000 717,000 476,520 206,000 374,097 1,412,442 200,000 6,797,831 1,351,338 $12,022,204
Grand Total
100,000 621,720 13,000 553,976 200,000 1,873,625 400,000 476,520 1,300,220 374,097 7,524,592 1,696,287 29,464,729 100,000 3,726,286 647,470 12,280 $49,084,802 $
Budget Allocation by Grant Program Grant Years 2003 through 2005
SHSP $29,161,578 MMRS $5,462
Program
SHSP1 LETPP1 UASI MMRS CCP EMPG Total
1
2003
$15,914,400 2,206,693 87,835 2,040,414 $20,249,342
Grant Year 2004
$ 7,442,832 4,823,200 2,173,6441 179,120 2,194,460 $16,813,256
2005
$ 5,804,346 1,810,102 1,999,293 5,462 244,176 2,158,825 $12,022,204
LETPP $6,633,302 EMPG $6,393,699
CCP $511,131 UASI $6,379,630
Amounts include local jurisdiction monies retained by the State to use for equipment purchases, training, and exercises, and critical infrastructure protection that will directly support regions and local jurisdictions. Such amounts are $8,688,000, $1,824,798, and $1,800,000 for the SHSP for grant years 2003 through 2005, respectively; $2,965,400 and $353,976 for the LETPP for grant years 2004 and 2005; and $252,000 for the UASI for grant year 2004.
Total: $49,084,802
Office of the Auditor General
page
a-3
Arizona Homeland Security Grant Monies
Central Region
Regional Data
Population Census and Estimate 2005 2000 (Estimate) Census
3,635,528 3,072,149
County
Maricopa
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Web site at www.census.gov. Accessed September 25, 2006.
Budget Allocation by Grant Program Grant Years 2003 through 2005
Grant Year 2004
$ 7,064,986 1,328,000 9,954,579 126,198 274,961 $18,748,724
Program
SHSP LETPP UASI MMRS CCP EMPG Total
2003
$ 4,964,169 8,826,774 70,625 274,961 $14,136,529
2005
$ 4,558,283 2,938,270 7,997,170 678,679 274,961 $16,447,363
UASI $26,778,523
CCP $196,823 MMRS $678,679 EMPG $824,883 LETPP $4,266,270
SHSP $16,587,438
Total: $49,332,616
Budget Allocation by Jurisdiction Type Grant Years 2003 through 2005
Grant Year Jurisdiction Type
County City/town Indian tribe Unallocated monies Total
Programs Awarded through the AOHS and the ADEM by Grant Year
Program SHSPogram Pr 2003 2003
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
2004 2004
2005 2005
2003
$ 4,835,755 9,300,774 $14,136,529
2004
$ 2,109,661 16,589,748 48,762 553 $18,748,724
2005
$ 3,375,580 12,895,433 175,000 1,350 $16,447,363
LETPP SHSP UASI LETPP MMRS UASI CCP MMRS EMPG CCP
N/A EMPG Shaded areas indicate program awards were granted in that year. Shaded areas indicate program awards were granted in that year.
State of Arizona
page
a-4
Arizona Homeland Security Grant Monies
East Region
Regional Data
Population Census and Estimate 2005 2000 (Estimate) Census
51,663 33,073 7,521 229,549 321,806 51,335 33,489 8,547 179,727 273,098
County
Gila Graham Greenlee Pinal Total
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Web site at www.census.gov. Accessed September 25, 2006.
Budget Allocation by Grant Program Grant Years 2003 through 2005
Grant Year 2004
$2,389,152 600,000 77,553 198,984 $3,265,689
Program
SHSP LETPP CCP EMPG Total
2003
$4,398,668 43,397 198,984 $4,641,049
2005
$1,552,464 198,653 198,984 $1,950,101
SHSP $8,340,284
CCP $120,950 EMPG $596,952 LETPP $798,653
Total: $9,856,839
Budget Allocation by Jurisdiction Type Grant Years 2003 through 2005
Grant Year Jurisdiction Type
County City/town Fire district Indian tribe Total
Programs Awarded through the AOHS and the ADEM by Grant Year
Program 2003
N/A N/A N/A
2004
2005
2003
$4,641,049
2004
$2,950,384 315,305 $3,265,689
2005
$1,148,484 530,349 167,300 103,968 $1,950,101
SHSP LETPP UASI MMRS CCP EMPG
N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A
$4,641,049
Shaded areas indicate program awards were granted in that year.
Office of the Auditor General
page
a-5
Arizona Homeland Security Grant Monies
North Region
Regional Data
Population Census and Estimate 2005 2000 (Estimate) Census
69,343 123,866 108,432 301,641 69,423 116,320 97,470 283,213
County
Apache Coconino Navajo Total
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Web site at www.census.gov. Accessed September 25, 2006.
Budget Allocation by Grant Program Grant Years 2003 through 2005
Grant Year 2004
$2,784,567 710,088 68,760 154,935 $3,718,350
Program
SHSP LETPP CCP EMPG Total
2003
$2,863,703 38,528 154,935 $3,057,166
2005
$2,760,956 401,937 5,000 154,935 $3,322,828
SHSP $8,409,226
CCP $112,288 EMPG $464,805
Total: $10,098,344
LETPP $1,112,025
Budget Allocation by Jurisdiction Type Grant Years 2003 through 2005
Grant Year Jurisdiction Type
County City/town Fire district Indian tribe Other Total
Programs Awarded through the AOHS and the ADEM by Grant Year
Program 2003
N/A N/A N/A
2004
2005
2003
$3,057,166
2004
$1,634,838 865,455 147,267 1,055,558 15,232 $3,718,350
2005
$ 503,435 2,171,072 115,933 422,388 110,000 $3,322,828
SHSP LETPP UASI MMRS CCP EMPG
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
$3,057,166
Shaded areas indicate program awards were granted in that year.
State of Arizona
page
a-6
Arizona Homeland Security Grant Monies
South Region
Regional Data
Population Census and Estimate 2005 2000 (Estimate) Census
126,106 924,786 42,009 181,277 1,274,178 117,755 843,746 38,381 160,026 1,159,908
County
Cochise Pima Santa Cruz Yuma Total
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Web site at www.census.gov. Accessed September 25, 2006.
Budget Allocation by Grant Program Grant Years 2003 through 2005
Grant Year 2004
$ 8,868,979 1,597,612 133,020 290,207 $10,889,818
Program
SHSP LETPP MMRS CCP EMPG Total
2003
$7,250,805 74,433 290,207 $7,615,445
2005
$3,101,113 1,708,601 226,227 5,000 290,207 $5,331,148
SHSP $19,220,897
CCP $212,453 MMRS $226,227 EMPG $870,621 LETPP $3,306,213
Total: $23,836,411
Budget Allocation by Jurisdiction Type Grant Years 2003 through 2005
Grant Year Jurisdiction Type
County City/town Fire district Indian tribe Other Total
Programs Awarded through the AOHS and the ADEM by Grant Year
Program 2003
N/A N/A N/A
2004
2005
2003
$7,415,445 200,000
2004
$ 4,284,452 4,051,713 124,020 930,300 1,499,333 $10,889,818
2005
$1,826,859 2,986,796 139,500 375,493 2,500 $5,331,148
SHSP LETPP UASI MMRS CCP EMPG
N/A N/A
N/A
$7,615,445
Shaded areas indicate program awards were granted in that year.
Office of the Auditor General
page
a-7
Arizona Homeland Security Grant Monies
West Region
Regional Data
Population Census and Estimate 2005 2000 (Estimate) Census
20,238 187,200 198,701 406,139 19,715 155,032 167,517 342,264
County
La Paz Mohave Yavapai Total
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Web site at www.census.gov. Accessed September 25, 2006.
Budget Allocation by Grant Program Grant Years 2003 through 2005
Grant Year 2004
$2,753,484 230,100 65,349 163,538 $3,212,471
Program
SHSP LETPP CCP EMPG Total
2003
$3,225,255 36,521 163,538 $3,425,314
2005
$2,244,569 223,067 163,538 $2,631,174
SHSP $8,223,308
CCP $101,870 EMPG $490,614 LETPP $453,167
Total: $9,268,959
Budget Allocation by Jurisdiction Type Grant Years 2003 through 2005
Grant Year Jurisdiction Type
County City/town Fire district Indian tribe Other Total
Programs Awarded through the AOHS and the ADEM by Grant Year
Program 2003
N/A N/A N/A
2004
2005
2003
$3,425,314
2004
$2,817,517 305,100 89,854 $3,212,471
2005
$1,152,728 959,704 246,751 68,252 203,739 $2,631,174
SHSP LETPP UASI MMRS CCP EMPG
N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A
$3,425,314
Shaded areas indicate program awards were granted in that year.
State of Arizona
page
a-8
Table 12: Homeland Security Monies
By Agency and Project Grant Years 2003 through 2005 (Unaudited)
Project State Agency
Arizona State University
Federal Program
SHSP
Grant Year
2003
Name
Enhancing security at critical infrastructures
Agency Reported Purpose
Purchase an integrated law enforcement interoperable communications system known as Cody 6. This system is designed to address unique file-linking structures needed to easily enter and retrieve vital law enforcement information. Other equipment requested includes: wireless laptop computers for patrol cars, wireless data terminals for patrol motorcycles, a server, personal computer system, and code division multiple access service for data transmission. (1) Communications equipment, including satellite phones; (2) training (i.e., chemical and biological survey course and biohazard sampling and detection course); (3) manpower; (4) chemical bio reservoir (i.e., handheld camera unit and portable water systems); and (5) contingency planning and exercises. The Arizona Indian town hall is a 2-1/2 day forum that has proven effective in instituting legislative and policy changes that benefit Arizona tribal communities. With the help of other public institutions and tribal entities, Arizona Commission of Indian Affairs performs research and prepares background documentation for the Indian town hall. These background documents are mailed out to participants in advance of the town hall so they can educate themselves on the topic and prepare themselves for discussions of specific issues. During the Indian town hall, panels of 20-25 people discuss specific issues related to the major topic and develop consensus on recommendations from which a draft report is produced. On the final day, all participants meet in a plenary session where a final consensus is reached and a final report is drafted. This report is then used by interested community members, legislators, and other leaders as the basis to seek changes in Arizona state law, administrative rules and regulatory rules, or policies with the overall goal of more effective intergovernmental interaction and enhanced services to communities throughout the State. The Arizona Indian town hall is similar to the process used by the Arizona town hall, but has been slightly altered to accommodate the various cultures of Indian communities. The Indian town hall process has many advantages from a policy standpoint. First, the forum attracts a cross section of community members, agency officials, and policy makers. Second, the Indian town hall process encourages discussion from all participants, which results in a multifaceted discussion of issues that often are overlooked at a conference. Finally, the town hall format is geared toward consensus; thus, the recommendations coming out of the Indian town hall are realistic and achievable. Develop a state-wide integrated justice information system to help ensure more accurate offender information.
Budget
$ 100,000
Army National Guard Commission of Indian Affairs
SHSP
2003
Enhanced security
621,720
SHSP
2005
25th annual Indian town hall
13,000
Office of the Auditor General
Criminal Justice Commission
LETPP
2005
Data integration program
353,976
page
a-9
page
State of Arizona
a-10
Table 12: State Agencies (Cont'd)
Project State Agency
Criminal Justice Commission (Concl'd) Department of Administration
Federal Program
SHSP SHSP
Grant Year
2003 2003
Name
Criminal records access Interoperable communications equipment
Agency Reported Purpose
Improve the capabilities of criminal justice agencies around the State for access to criminal justice and criminal history records. Replace handheld radios with a 900 MHZ system and base for the Capitol Police. Pay overtime costs of officers and provide security for the Capitol Mall and Tucson Complex. Additional equipment includes portable defibrillators, portable magnetometers, portable signage for personnel directions for access to buildings, portable electric vehicle for service assistants and runners at the Arizona Department of Administration Emergency Operations Center, and portable radio battery analyzer for Kenwood radio batteries. Bomb detection canine will be used by the Capitol Police to sweep state property for explosive devices prior to and during functions involving the Governor's Office, state Legislature, visiting dignitaries, and other high-profile special events. It would also be the primary response to any and all bomb threats, suspicious package or article calls, and suspicious mail calls. Additional funding requests include chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive operational search and rescue equipment (search and rescue vests, binoculars, and cart); information technology such as computer hardware and handheld computers for emergency response applications; interoperability of communications project such as radios and bridging and patching equipment; and chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive response and terrorist incident prevention equipment such as hardware, software, and Internet-based systems. Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. The Department of Agriculture food production staff will focus on outreach to those in production agriculture to the vulnerabilities and threats to the critical infrastructure of agriculture in Arizona as they relate to the following priorities: tribal nations, international border, international ports of entry, livestock auctions, confined animal feeding operations, processing (wholesale), and warehousing and delivery of fresh produce, both domestic and imported. Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. Purchase equipment for veterinary toxicology testing to be performed at the Department of Agriculture.
Budget
$ 200,000 80,000
UASI
2005
Personnel protection and communications
120,000
Department of Agriculture
SHSP SHSP
2004 2005 Biosecurity of food production and food delivery systems
248,981 150,000
UASI UASI UASI
2003 2004 2005
Upgrade agriculture lab equipment and training
242,000 665,644 567,000
Table 12: State Agencies (Cont'd)
Project State Agency
Department of Corrections
Federal Program
SHSP
Grant Year
2003
Name
First responder preparedness and enhancement of security at critical infrastructure facilities Critical infrastructure metal detection project Enhance interoperable communications Explosive detection dog National incident management system compliance plan review Cyber security information technology awareness program
Agency Reported Purpose
(1) Security equipment for correctional buildings; (2) interoperable communications equipment (i.e., multifrequency portable radios and firewall and network monitoring equipment); (3) medical equipment (i.e., automatic external defibrillators, refrigerators for medical supplies, and emergency power system); (4) training and exercises (i.e., video camera system for development of staff training videos and firearms training system). Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. This program's objectives are to (1) implement the information technology sharing and analysis center's mission critical security enhancements recommendations; (2) implement the Government Information Technology Agency's technology infrastructure standards assessments recommendations; and (3) address the Department of Economic Security's (DES) specific standards compliance gaps. The scope of work will (1) educate agency end users on their responsibility and role in state-wide information technology security; (2) collect data and lessons learned required to make a business case for the development of a statewide information technology security awareness program with multiple campaigns per year; and (3) assist DES with improving overall standards compliance. Implement connectivity between the data centers and state-wide communications network to facilitate redundant infrastructure and disaster recovery using shared fiber resources. This program's objectives are to (1) implement the information technology sharing and analysis center's mission critical security enhancements recommendations; (2) implement the Government Information Technology Agency's technology infrastructure standards assessments recommendations; and (3) address the Department of Economic Security's (DES) specific standards compliance gaps. The scope of work will (1) educate agency end users on their responsibility and role in state-wide information technology security; (2) collect data and lessons learned required to make a business case for the development of a statewide information technology security awareness program with multiple campaigns per year; and (3) assist DES with improving overall standards compliance.
Budget
$ 100,000
SHSP SHSP SHSP SHSP Department of Economic Security SHSP
2004 2004 2004 2004 2005
6,013 235,110 5,443 53,434 48,574
UASI UASI
Office of the Auditor General
2005 2005
Critical data and communications risk mitigation Cyber security information technology awareness program
383,000 44,946
page
a-11
page
State of Arizona
a-12
Table 12: State Agencies (Cont'd)
Project State Agency
Department of Environmental Quality
Federal Program
SHSP
Grant Year
2003
Name
First responder preparedness and enhanced security of critical infrastructure
Agency Reported Purpose
Personal protection equipment (i.e., chemical-resistant boots, flame-resistant coveralls, air-purifying respirators, flame-resistant gloves), communications and information systems (cellular phones, multichannel radios, portable global positioning systems), and detection equipment (i.e., pesticide screening kits, inflatable portable decontamination shower, and hazardous materials chemical agents detection systems). Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. The purpose of this project is to purchase additional emergency response-related equipment, including an infrared spectrometer for deployment in the southern region for use in identifying suspicious materials and purchase items needed to maintain and support emergency response-related equipment. Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. Provide additional physical security for the Department of Environmental Quality headquarters facility where the Department's emergency response equipment and information used to manage and monitor hazardous waste facilities and public drinking water providers are stored and managed. Install emergency generators needed to power the emergency response operations center and the agency's information technology servers and install additional security cameras around facility grounds. Request funding to equip all of the agency's unmarked police vehicles with up-to-date, two-way mobile radios. Establish a multiple agency, public, and private task force that would aggressively investigate and prosecute suspects involved in creating, using, and selling fake identification cards and report to public and private service agencies results and findings of the task force for refinement of processes known to utilize identification for access. Establish a multiple agency, public, and private task force that would aggressively investigate and prosecute suspects involved in creating, using, and selling fake identification cards and report to public and private service agencies results and findings of the task force for refinement of processes known to utilize identification for access. The personal equipment for this task force includes a digital camera, video recorder, digital tape recorder, Blackberry telephone, ballistic protective vest, document scanner, identification card reader, and magnifying device.
Budget
$ 500,000
SHSP SHSP
2004 2005
Emergency response operations project
200,000 110,000
UASI UASI UASI
2003 2004 2005
Rapid response team Facility enhancement project
194,220 200,000 96,000
Department of Liquor Licenses and Control
SHSP UASI
2005 2005
Communications radios Identification fraud task force planner salary and employee-related expenditures and personal equipment Personal equipment
205,750 161,847
UASI
2005
6,500
Table 12: State Agencies (Cont'd)
Project State Agency
Department of Public Safety
Federal Program
LETPP
Grant Year
2004
Name
Arizona Counterterrorism Information Center--Early Warning Center Governor's protective detail Planning--operation stonegarden Terrorism liaison officer and chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive response program Prevention and detection capabilities Enhancing the ability to detect and prevent future acts of terrorism
Agency Reported Purpose
The State will establish a 24 hours-a-day, 7 days-a-week intelligence and information analysis center that will serve as a central hub to facilitate the collection, analysis, and dissemination of crime- and terrorism-related information. Upgrade security system for the 8th and 9th floors at the Arizona State Capitol. Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. The award amount will be allocated to achieve these objectives: (1) assess vulnerability of and harden critical infrastructure, (2) establish and enhance critical infrastructure, and (3) establish and enhance regional response. The breakout of the award will include the following areas: planning, equipment, training, exercises, and target hardening. Part of the monies allocated to this program will be used to purchase equipment for 65 new terrorism liaison officers. Equipment will include an Intel suite of laptop computers and software and a suite including digital cameras, global positioning system, and range finders. Purchase specialty vehicles, equipment, and contract analysis personnel to increase the prevention and detection of hazardous materials and explosives (1) Arizona antiterrorist and crime information center--The State will establish a 24 hours-a-day, 7 days-a-week intelligence and information analysis center that will serve as a central hub to facilitate the collection, analysis, and dissemination of crime and terrorism-related information. (2) First responder equipment. (3) Training--Hazardous materials and weapons of mass destruction technician. (4) Criminal justice communications network upgrade--The State of Arizona will take steps to establish a state-wide integrated justice system that links the information systems used by federal, state, local, and tribal criminal justice entities in such a way as to support the identification of emerging terrorism-related trends. Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. Personal protective equipment, detection equipment, response equipment, and safe haven construction for at-risk vehicles at border ports. Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM.
Budget
$1,777,816
LETPP LETPP LETPP
2004 2004 2004
56,994 22,990 2,965,400
LETPP SHSP
2005 2003
1,412,442 700,000
Department of Transportation
SHSP UASI SHSP SHSP SHSP
2004 2003 2003 2004 2004
Responder preparedness and mitigation Automatic vehicle location devices Continuity of operations plan
132,234 456,716 500,000 13,437 17,781
Office of the Auditor General
page
a-13
page
State of Arizona
a-14
Table 12: State Agencies (Cont'd)
Project State Agency
Department of Transportation (Concl'd)
Federal Program
SHSP SHSP SHSP SHSP UASI UASI UASI UASI UASI
Grant Year
2004 2004 2004 2004 2003 2004 2004 2004 2005
Name
Enhance cyber security Interoperable communications Motor vehicle division security video equipment Vulnerability assessment Continuity of operations plan Enhance cyber security Interoperability communications Continuity of operations, business continuity, disaster recovery planning
Agency Reported Purpose
Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. Detailed project information was not available at the AOHS or the ADEM. Refine and improve state plans and procedures to prevent terrorist attacks, reduce vulnerability to terrorism and all other critical hazards, and minimize the damage and enhance the recovery from attacks and other critical hazards. Continue to pay full-time staff and consultants to refine and improve plans. Send two attendees to participate in the Disaster Recovery Journal conference for planning training. Continue annual maintenance contract on living disaster recovery planning software used for the Department's plans. Protect 5,000 computers; 300 servers; 200 routers and switches for millions of critical motor vehicle, title and registration, digital driver license, aircraft registration, and state highway traffic control records. Decrease vulnerability from breach and sabotage by installing intrusion detection systems to monitor intrusions, encryption systems for sensitive data, scanning and penetration tools to assess vulnerability, and security hardware. Provide training on new security tools such as cyber security and risk mitigation plans and risk and vulnerability assessments. Monies retained by ADEM to support personal services, employee-related expenditures, and indirect costs.
Budget
$ 154,179 282,926 126,935 4,742 156,287 202,390 31,110 6,500 100,000
UASI
2005
Cyber security enhancement
100,000
Division of Emergency Management
CCP
2003
63,790
Table 12: State Agencies (Cont'd)
Project State Agency
Division of Emergency Management (Cont'd)
Federal Program
CCP
Grant Year
2003
Name
Agency Reported Purpose
Monies retained by ADEM for their preparedness section to help them in preparing state agencies and local emergency management organizations to respond to, recover from, and mitigate against disasters through planning, training, and exercise activities. Monies retained by ADEM to support administrative costs. Monies retained by ADEM to support personal services and employee-related expenditures. Monies provided to support the Arizona State Citizen Corps Council to increase public awareness, share information, promote training, and encourage partnerships among citizens. The State Citizen Corps Council outreach campaign will be an ongoing effort to educate the public, regional advisory councils, and administrative and elected officials about the value of Citizen Corps and emergency preparedness. Funding will support the development of training materials, State Citizen Corps Council members' travel, and multimedia public service announcements. Host a series of trainings on NIMS for volunteers of Citizen Corps and its affiliated programs. Trainings will be held in each of the five homeland security regions. Monies retained by ADEM for personal services and employee-related expenditures. Monies provided to support the Arizona State Citizen Corps Council to increase public awareness, share information, promote training, and encourage partnerships among citizens. Monies retained by ADEM to support training programs. Monies provided to support the Arizona Emergency Response Commission to aid in planning, release and incident reporting, data management guidance for inventory reporting, public disclosure of information for hazardous chemicals in Arizona, and development of training and outreach programs. Develop a Web-based hazardous materials inventory reporting system. Commercial facilities that produce, sell, and store hazardous materials must annually report their inventory. This system helps both in the submission of these reports and in processing information. Monies provided to the Arizona Fire Academy to conduct prewildfire season response training for fire service personnel throughout the State. Monies retained at ADEM for indirect costs. $
Budget
24,045
CCP CCP CCP CCP
2004 2004 2004 2005 Citizen Corps Council outreach campaign
48,105 63,790 67,225 55,879
CCP CCP CCP CCP EMPG
2005 2005 2005 2005 2003
National incident management system (NIMS) training
5,000 86,447 71,850 25,000 21,000
EMPG
Office of the Auditor General
2003
Emergency response commission Tier II project
25,000
EMPG EMPG
2003 2003
15,000 217,134
page
a-15
page
State of Arizona
a-16
Table 12: State Agencies (Cont'd)
Project State Agency
Division of Emergency Management (Cont'd)
Federal Program
EMPG
Grant Year
2003
Name
Agency Reported Purpose
Monies retained by ADEM to support the logistics section. The logistics section consolidates the budget, finance, logistics, administration, telecommunications, and information technology/management functions for the division. Monies retained by ADEM for contingent events. Monies provided to support the Governor's Office. Monies retained by ADEM to support the operations section. The operations section creates plans to prevent, mitigate, respond, and recover from natural, technological, and terrorist events. Monies retained by ADEM for personal services and employee-related expenditures. Monies retained by ADEM for their preparedness section to help them in preparing state agencies and local emergency management organizations to respond to, recover from, and mitigate against disasters through planning, training, and exercise activities. Monies retained by ADEM to support training costs. Monies retained by ADEM for contingent events. Monies provided to support the Arizona Emergency Response Commission to aid in planning, release and incident reporting, data management guidance for inventory reporting, public disclosure of information for hazardous chemicals in Arizona, and development of training and outreach programs. Monies provided to the Arizona Fire Academy to conduct prewildfire season response training for fire service personnel throughout the State. Monies provided to the Forest Health Council for community outreach for wildfire prevention. Monies retained by ADEM for indirect costs. Monies retained by ADEM to support the logistics section. The logistics section consolidates the budget, finance, logistics, administration, telecommunications, and information technology/management functions for the division. Monies retained by ADEM to support the operations section. The operations section creates plans to prevent, mitigate, respond, and recover from natural, technological, and terrorist events. Monies retained by ADEM for personal services and employee-related expenditures. Monies retained by ADEM for their preparedness section to help them in preparing state agencies and local emergency management organizations to respond to, recover from, and mitigate against disasters through planning, training, and exercise activities. $
Budget
58,000
EMPG EMPG EMPG EMPG EMPG EMPG EMPG EMPG
2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2004 2004
368,778 75,000 50,000 1,113,504 51,998 45,000 342,324 17,983
EMPG EMPG EMPG EMPG EMPG
2004 2004 2004 2004 2004
15,000 15,000 315,891 32,000 27,000
EMPG EMPG
2004 2004
1,369,262 40,000
Table 12: State Agencies (Cont'd)
Project State Agency
Division of Eme